News:

Welcome to the new (and now only) Fora!

Main Menu

Coronavirus

Started by bacardiandlime, January 30, 2020, 03:20:28 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

nebo113

Quote from: apl68 on May 29, 2020, 07:51:55 AM
It turns out that our reported local family of super-spreaders weren't just victims of the rumor mill.  They've publicly said that four members of the family have tested positive.  They got tested across the state line, which has created a bureaucratic delay in getting them added to our local positive test figures. 

These next couple of weeks are going to be interesting.  I know of at least one church that had planned to start having socially-distanced worship services this Sunday that has now postponed their plans.  Our own church had planned to reopen for on-site worship in two weeks, with two services to spread people out.  That may end up pushed back as well.

I guess this whole thing will have the effect of curing a lot of local complacency about the ongoing need for protective measures.

Church across the road from me doesn't even pretend to social distance or wear masks. 

namazu

Quote from: apl68 on May 29, 2020, 09:46:55 AMFor all I know, they were all asymptomatic and had no inkling that anybody in the family was sick until too late.  No more guilty of carelessness than anybody else, but had the misfortune to be "It."
It's an unfortunate situation for that family -- both the illnesses and any unjustified harassment heaped on top of that -- but if there's a silver lining, perhaps it's that their experience may serve as a cautionary tale to others.  I hope it will be a reminder that asymptomatic people / people who don't know they're sick can spread the virus, and thus we should *all* assume we are potentially contagious and act accordingly (e.g. by distancing and wearing masks).

I am glad to hear that the churches near you are rethinking/postponing their in-person services in light of local transmission.  Disappointing from a craving-community standpoint, but sensible and loving from a "we are our brothers' keepers" and a community-is-more-than-physical standpoint.

Caracal

Quote from: namazu on May 31, 2020, 11:17:44 AM
Quote from: apl68 on May 29, 2020, 09:46:55 AMFor all I know, they were all asymptomatic and had no inkling that anybody in the family was sick until too late.  No more guilty of carelessness than anybody else, but had the misfortune to be "It."
It's an unfortunate situation for that family -- both the illnesses and any unjustified harassment heaped on top of that -- but if there's a silver lining, perhaps it's that their experience may serve as a cautionary tale to others.  I hope it will be a reminder that asymptomatic people / people who don't know they're sick can spread the virus, and thus we should *all* assume we are potentially contagious and act accordingly (e.g. by distancing and wearing masks).

I am glad to hear that the churches near you are rethinking/postponing their in-person services in light of local transmission.  Disappointing from a craving-community standpoint, but sensible and loving from a "we are our brothers' keepers" and a community-is-more-than-physical standpoint.

Yeah, I think one of the things that I find frustrating is the way many people have a hard time with the idea that the only way we can manage to have things be tolerable for the foreseeable future is if we accept that things aren't going to be able to go back to normal. People need social interaction, kids need to go to school, but this stuff is only going to be possible if people aren't doing things that cause unnecessary risk. There's a long history of outside church services. Done with reasonable distancing, that should be reasonably low risk. If teenagers need to go hang out outside there should usually be places they can do that without huge risks.

nebo113

I'm pretty tired of all the blather about coming together in worship.  I come from a looooong line of preachers, several of whom where circuit riders, on horses, who would preach maybe once a month at various churches, weather permitting.  If you need a building and other people to support your faith, your faith is pretty weak.

Caracal

Quote from: nebo113 on June 01, 2020, 05:13:22 AM
I'm pretty tired of all the blather about coming together in worship.  I come from a looooong line of preachers, several of whom where circuit riders, on horses, who would preach maybe once a month at various churches, weather permitting.  If you need a building and other people to support your faith, your faith is pretty weak.

Yeah, the camp meeting and the outdoor service were really huge parts of early evangelical worship styles. It made me think about whether it would be feasible to have outdoor classes sometimes. There's a giant almost entirely unused outdoor amphitheater tucked away in a weird corner of our campus. Alas, probably not feasible.

apl68

Quote from: Caracal on June 01, 2020, 07:15:43 AM
Quote from: nebo113 on June 01, 2020, 05:13:22 AM
I'm pretty tired of all the blather about coming together in worship.  I come from a looooong line of preachers, several of whom where circuit riders, on horses, who would preach maybe once a month at various churches, weather permitting.  If you need a building and other people to support your faith, your faith is pretty weak.

Yeah, the camp meeting and the outdoor service were really huge parts of early evangelical worship styles. It made me think about whether it would be feasible to have outdoor classes sometimes. There's a giant almost entirely unused outdoor amphitheater tucked away in a weird corner of our campus. Alas, probably not feasible.

Well, our town, despite the wonderful weather yesterday, has mostly had rainy Sundays since this started.  It's put a damper (so to speak) on several churches' efforts to hold outdoor services.  The churches around here have been trying hard to work around the public health emergency with social distancing, outdoor services, and remote online services.  Also with keeping the local food pantry supplied, and keeping tabs on elderly members and others who might need help during this time.  But of course that's not as newsworthy as the occasional self-important rabble-rouser pastor in Louisiana or somewhere seeking confrontation over their right to do exactly as they please.
See, your King is coming to you, just and bringing salvation, gentle and lowly, and riding upon a donkey.

Economizer

News outlets, when responding global CV19 figures, often mention that the U.S has suffered the greatest number of CV-19 related deaths. Can it be said that the U.S. has effected the greatest number, and or per cent, of successful recoveries, numbers of people tested, and other intepolatons and extrapolations related  to CV-19 worldwide?
So, I tried to straighten everything out and guess what I got for it.  No, really, just guess!

Stockmann

Yes, although surely recoveries, although obviously more desirable than deaths, are not as good as not getting it, particularly as the long-term effects are unkown.

In other news, Sweden admits the Swedish strategy failed:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52903717

As neighbors are reopening their borders to each other, Sweden has effectively been quarantined by Denmark and Norway. Sweden has been significantly more affected relative to population than the US and far more than any other Scandinavian country.
After having plateaued for a while, global daily new cases seem to be rising again; deaths per day had been falling but the fall appears to be stopping.

namazu

Quote from: Economizer on June 03, 2020, 11:29:40 AM
News outlets, when responding global CV19 figures, often mention that the U.S has suffered the greatest number of CV-19 related deaths. Can it be said that the U.S. has effected the greatest number, and or per cent, of successful recoveries, numbers of people tested, and other intepolatons and extrapolations related  to CV-19 worldwide?
In absolute numbers, yes.  Per capita?  No.

Caracal

Quote from: namazu on June 03, 2020, 12:37:21 PM
Quote from: Economizer on June 03, 2020, 11:29:40 AM
News outlets, when responding global CV19 figures, often mention that the U.S has suffered the greatest number of CV-19 related deaths. Can it be said that the U.S. has effected the greatest number, and or per cent, of successful recoveries, numbers of people tested, and other intepolatons and extrapolations related  to CV-19 worldwide?
In absolute numbers, yes.  Per capita?  No.

Focusing on absolute numbers doesn't make that much sense in general. The US is, thus far, the largest country that has had a really big outbreak. In terms of per capita deaths, the US is way below the worst hit European countries (The UK, Spain, Italy, Belgium, France) Some of the places that have been been able to control things are probably not reasonable comparisons to the US. New Zealand is two islands with about the population of the San Francisco metro area. There are some similar dynamics in some smaller European countries. Germany is in some ways probably the best example of a large country that has managed to contain the outbreak. Unfortunately, I'm not sure the US will end up having the most deaths in the long run. Things seem quite bad in Brazil.

Stockmann

Definitely the US, relative to population, hasn't been nearly as badly hit as some parts of Europe.

Quote from: Caracal on June 03, 2020, 01:37:52 PM
Germany is in some ways probably the best example of a large country that has managed to contain the outbreak.

China, South Korea, Japan and Vietnam have much better numbers relative to population than Germany does. New Zeland does have a big advantage in being an island nation (as is Japan) but then again, so is the UK (corona reached even Shetland and the Falklands) and, well, let's just say that the UK is clearly as solid as a Northern Rock.

QuoteUnfortunately, I'm not sure the US will end up having the most deaths in the long run. Things seem quite bad in Brazil.

In addition, things are also deteriorating rapidly in the Indian subcontinent, so I agree, I don't think the US will forever be the country with the most deaths. Certainly not by realistic estimates, as Mexico and Brazil seem to be massively undercounting.

writingprof

Quote from: nebo113 on June 01, 2020, 05:13:22 AM
I'm pretty tired of all the blather about coming together in worship.  I come from a looooong line of preachers, several of whom where circuit riders, on horses, who would preach maybe once a month at various churches, weather permitting.  If you need a building and other people to support your faith, your faith is pretty weak.

The Bible clearly mandates corporate worship and specifically describes what ought to be done in a worship service. (Google the regulative principle of worship for more information.) That some Christians and Christian denominations disregard the Bible's teachings on this matter is beside the point.

I am not arguing (here) that temporarily closing churches was unnecessary. But I am arguing against the idea that "needing a building and other people" is a sign of weak faith. That's simple not true.

mamselle

#582
The joy of the Lord is our strength.

What weakens faith is giving into despair and hopelessness. Dependence on anything other than God becomes idolatry. I don't need to judge the quality, consistency, or strength of another's faith--that's not my business, that's between them and God, unless they become harmful to others or themselves.

But claiming that an upheld (upside-down) Bible proves any attachment to faith, or that coming together into a building (when that action endangers oneself, those present, and all those they will interact with for the next foreseeable period of time) represents a higher order of creedal affirmation is misinformed.

God is love.

Enacted consideration of others is an important way of sharing and showing love, and creating a safe environment (by abstaining from causing anyone to enter an environment that has the greatest potential to become unsafe simply because of their presence) is a fuller expression of love than any other way I can think of.

There is in fact no direct NT commandment that requires communal worship...in fact, the number of times Jesus is depicted as going alone to pray alone uphold the validity of individual prayer and praise on their own terms. Gathering together can indeed be a blessing, but concrete material presence is not the only way--or the best way, in the present circumstances--to be together.

There are indeed OT commands to observe very specific moments, days, hours, and weeks of communal worship, in very specific tents or buildings, yes.

But one of the elements in the discussion between Peter and Paul in the council at Jerusalem was the disambiguation between Jewish practices that were still incumbent upon those baptised into the new faith--i.e., in Jesus as God's salvific representative on earth, and redemptive sacrifice thence ascended to Heaven--and those that were not.

Abstention from eating meat sacrificed to idols (so as not to injure others' consciences), and dismissal of the need for circumcision, as well as of the need for observing the ancient Hebraic dietary laws, were among the topics discussed. The need to meet in a specific place doesn't enter into it. Paul prays in prison. Philip witnesses to the eunuch in his chariot. Those liturgical moments were as valid as any that occurred in the church at Antioch, or Dura-Europas, or Rome. Inclusivity of forms and discernment of spirits were the point.

Many of Paul's, Peter's, John's, James' (and others') letters, as well, point out the new emphasis, not on the law, but on grace....and urged new churches to discern carefully among those coming to preach otherwise to them.

Putting someone "under the Law" to attend worship in a physical space when that attendance is so highly, potentially lethal to all, is blasphemous, as far as I'm concerned. It is in the same category as putting God to the test, which Jesus clearly points out to Satan is wrong, during the temptations following John's baptism of him.

Where communal worship threatens the lives of others, an insistence on its necessity (and guilting others into believing it to be necessary) is self-serving legalism (and more often tied to the money-grubbing desire to attract more contributions because in-person attendance is associated with same)*.

The Sabbath is made for humanity, we are not made for the Sabbath....and the value of remote worship is something I find myself attesting to every week: it now enables me to worship with a congregation I've missed for decades, because I don't live nearby anymore.

That alone has been blessing enough for me.

Morning prayer and evening praise hem the day around. Those can happen at home, in an armchair, on the back porch, alone or with a few others.

I can teach the history of liturgical architecture all the way through, but I don't venerate the buildings.   

God is not bound by an enclosed space, and while we definitely need other people of faith for encouragement, we do not need to enter such a space as te only means of discovering God's presence among us, or finding that consolation.


-=-=-=-=-
* Not in quite the same league as the "Gimme-for-Jesus" folks, but this was a practice even in the middle ages: the processions and chapels with named saints' worship arrangements funded the mills that ground the grain and drove the bread-making process that fed the clergy in the town I research, and probably many others.

And--while they would disclaim any politial relationship to Rome, there is also direct continuity between Tetzel's 1517 efforts to raise money for St. Peter's, and the televangelists who bankrupted my brother by promising him 'healing,' 'annointing,' and 'a special place in heaven' if he'd just make sizeable donations to fund their polyester leisure-suit wardrobe. (I once called all the ones I could find phone numbers for, and told them what they'd done. They agreed to remove him from their mailing lists, although I'm sure he just signed up for others.) - M.
Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.

Reprove not a scorner, lest they hate thee: rebuke the wise, and they will love thee.

Give instruction to the wise, and they will be yet wiser: teach the just, and they will increase in learning.

Hegemony

Mamselle, what date (by which I mean what century) were the mills funded in this way? I have a professional reason for asking.

Caracal

Quote from: mamselle on June 04, 2020, 05:57:42 PM


Putting someone "under the Law" to attend worship in a physical space when that attendance is so highly, potentially lethal to all, is blasphemous, as far as I'm concerned. It is in the same category as putting God to the test, which Jesus clearly points out to Satan is wrong, during the temptations following John's baptism of him.

Where communal worship threatens the lives of others, an insistence on its necessity (and guilting others into believing it to be necessary) is self-serving legalism

There's a whole body of Jewish teaching that makes a very similar argument. Essentially, commandments are for life, so the duty to protect and preserve life supersedes all requirements. Normally, you shouldn't labor on the sabbath, which for Orthodox Jews involves very strict requirements, but if a life is in danger it should all be discarded. Some Rabbis argued that even considering the question of whether a life is truly in danger is a terrible mistake. If someone might be in danger, it is offensive to the very idea of biblical law to be standing around trying to decide how dire the situation is.