99% Survival rate

[Mety]

Data and effects of COVID are objective (i.e. 1 to 2% mortality rate...number of cases)...what you think should be done and the impact on society are subjective.

This is actually what I'm saying. Thank you for finally getting it.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I can prove Christianity God as the only God ONLY IF you believe The Bible as the inerrant Word of God. Believing as such might be a subjective matter for you, but once we settle that matter, The Bible provides plenty of evidences for God. That's what the Apostles were doing after Jesus ascended. Proving Jesus as the Son of God from the Scriptures. Fully believing is the work of the Holy Spirit, but logically the science and datas keep proving the existence of God even until now.

There are other things also such real believing Christians' fruits. That is love. I'm talking about the love that is defined from The Bible, not what the world is saying of it or how you define in your own way. So you're partly right saying that religion is not logical, but once you take the Word of God as is, everything becomes very logical for Christian believers at least. Not saying you're doing that, but I don't think believing just because is that good idea IMHO.

You cannot say something is objective logically by referencing itself.  It is not objectively logical to say that something is right or wrong because I said so.  That may make sense to you but it is not objectively logical.

This is what I mean by reductive reasoning....you take objective data and fit them into an existing conclusion.  What you believe is to be a "logical" explanation is just you trying to reaffirming your own beliefs.  That is the opposite of logic.

Again...your explanations are subjective.  Go talk to a Muslim or a Buddhist or an agnostic and they will each have their own explanation on things like love or creation.  There is no way that you can prove that you are more right than them from an objective standard.  It's just your belief.

For example, you stated that:  "I can prove Christianity God as the only God ONLY IF you believe The Bible as the inerrant Word of God."  You can do that with basically any religion or belief system.  You speak to a Muslim, they will tell you that Allah is the one true god and that the Koran is the inerrant word of Allah.  How are you going to prove that you are more correct than them? 

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Data and effects of COVID are objective (i.e. 1 to 2% mortality rate...number of cases)...what you think should be done and the impact on society are subjective.

This is actually what I'm saying. Thank you for finally getting it.

I know that's what you have been saying except your conclusions are based upon incorrect data (i.e. 0.1% death rate), that you claim to be right and that you do not believe other people's data are correct.  For example, you were arguing that there was no data that COVID has longterm effects when that is demonstrably false.  I present you the data and you tell me that the data does not mean anything.

Once we agree on a common set of objective data, we can have a discussion about what can and should be done about it. 

 

[Mety]

I can prove Christianity God as the only God ONLY IF you believe The Bible as the inerrant Word of God. Believing as such might be a subjective matter for you, but once we settle that matter, The Bible provides plenty of evidences for God. That's what the Apostles were doing after Jesus ascended. Proving Jesus as the Son of God from the Scriptures. Fully believing is the work of the Holy Spirit, but logically the science and datas keep proving the existence of God even until now.

There are other things also such real believing Christians' fruits. That is love. I'm talking about the love that is defined from The Bible, not what the world is saying of it or how you define in your own way. So you're partly right saying that religion is not logical, but once you take the Word of God as is, everything becomes very logical for Christian believers at least. Not saying you're doing that, but I don't think believing just because is that good idea IMHO.

You cannot say something is objective logically but referencing itself.  It is not objectively logical to say that something is right or wrong because I said so.  That may make sense to you but it is not objectively logical.

This is what I mean by reductive reasoning....you take objective data and fit them into an existing conclusion.  What you believe is to be a "logical" explanation is just you trying to reaffirming your own beliefs.  That is the opposite of logic.

Again...your explanations are subjective.  Go talk to a Muslim or a Buddhist or an agnostic and they will each have their own explanation on things like love or creation.  There is no way that you can prove that you are more right than them from an objective standard.  It's just your belief.

You keep thinking or saying I somehow think I'm more right than others. Is that what I'm saying though? You defined Christianity as something that is illogical yesterday. That's why I stepped in and tried to explain it very logical if you believe The Bible.

I'll use what you said with Covid data objectivity and subjectivity -
The Bible is the truth and that is objective... what you do with it is subjective.

 

[Mety]

Data and effects of COVID are objective (i.e. 1 to 2% mortality rate...number of cases)...what you think should be done and the impact on society are subjective.

This is actually what I'm saying. Thank you for finally getting it.

I know that's what you have been saying except your conclusions are based upon incorrect data (i.e. 0.1% death rate), that you claim to be right and that you do not believe other people's data are correct.  For example, you were arguing that there was no data that COVID has longterm effects when that is demonstrably false.  I present you the data and you tell me that the data does not mean anything.

Once we agree on a common set of objective data, we can have a discussion about what can and should be done about it.

I already made an apology saying I now see 1.7% is the accurate data. Why skipping that altogether and spreading only the things I said as a mistake? Also when did I say datas you provided didn't mean anything? No offense, but what you do seems like a reporting from fake news networks lol.

Well, if you knew what I've been saying all along then why waste time with me since we're saying the same thing?

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I can prove Christianity God as the only God ONLY IF you believe The Bible as the inerrant Word of God. Believing as such might be a subjective matter for you, but once we settle that matter, The Bible provides plenty of evidences for God. That's what the Apostles were doing after Jesus ascended. Proving Jesus as the Son of God from the Scriptures. Fully believing is the work of the Holy Spirit, but logically the science and datas keep proving the existence of God even until now.

There are other things also such real believing Christians' fruits. That is love. I'm talking about the love that is defined from The Bible, not what the world is saying of it or how you define in your own way. So you're partly right saying that religion is not logical, but once you take the Word of God as is, everything becomes very logical for Christian believers at least. Not saying you're doing that, but I don't think believing just because is that good idea IMHO.

You cannot say something is objective logically but referencing itself.  It is not objectively logical to say that something is right or wrong because I said so.  That may make sense to you but it is not objectively logical.

This is what I mean by reductive reasoning....you take objective data and fit them into an existing conclusion.  What you believe is to be a "logical" explanation is just you trying to reaffirming your own beliefs.  That is the opposite of logic.

Again...your explanations are subjective.  Go talk to a Muslim or a Buddhist or an agnostic and they will each have their own explanation on things like love or creation.  There is no way that you can prove that you are more right than them from an objective standard.  It's just your belief.

You keep thinking or saying I somehow think I'm more right than others. Is that what I'm saying though? You defined Christianity as something that is illogical yesterday. That's why I stepped in and tried to explain it very logical if you believe The Bible.

I'll use what you said with Covid data objectivity and subjectivity -
The Bible is the truth and that is objective... what you do with it is subjective.

What?  Bible is not "objectively" truth...it is true only if you are a Christian or a Jew.  For a Muslim, the Koran is the truth.  For agnostics, the Bible is just a collection of fairy tales.

I did not say Christianity is illogical...I said religion by its very nature is not objectively logic because it requires faith.  You keep skipping that first part...the most important part of Christianity is the faith.  That's why salvation is based upon faith alone...you just need to believe. 

Up until the last 400 to 500 years...most people did not even have access to the Bible...they just heard from prophets and/or the Church.

Again...you are reading what you want to read.  I never said that you said that you were more "right"...I said that you cannot objectively prove that your belief is more "right" than anyone else's beliefs, which is what objective logic requires.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I already made an apology saying I now see 1.7% is the accurate data. Why skipping that altogether and spreading only the things I said as a mistake? Also when did I say datas you provided didn't mean anything? No offense, but what you do seems like a reporting from fake news networks lol.

Well, if you knew what I've been saying all along then why waste time with me since we're saying the same thing?

Because you continue to dismiss the data points...i.e. your claim that there is no evidence proving long term effects or somehow there are no studies/data showing the effectiveness of mandatory protocols like masks and social distancing. 

If you acknowledge those data points, it makes little sense to not at least reconsider your stance or make an alternative argument.  I mean..is your stance the same whether the mortality rate is 0.1%, or 1.7%, or 17%?

That's why I made the point about Qwerty...he is seldomly dismiss data points and acknowledge the data presented...he just states that he has a higher risk tolerance. 

If that is you, just say that.  Just say that you are okay with a 1.7% mortality rate and hospitals being nearly full.  Just don't water it down by saying that the data is not true or that the disease is being overblown or hyped by the media.

 

[Mety]

@Mety:

I think the disconnect is semantics. You are using the definition of logic as a "way of thinking"... such as "What is your logic" or "I can see your logic". I am using logic as  more the scientific term, that adheres to certain rules like math. It's data based... not belief or opinion based.

And yes, as someone who believes in God, like qwerty wonders, that is not logical.

But conversely, when you look at life and the wonders of the world, my "logic" (using your definition) is how can one not think God exists?

So maybe that's the struggle the anti-Coviders have... since they really don't see the impact of Covid on their lives, it is "logical" for them to think it's not a big deal. You can see this same difference in attitudes in people who have never had a loved one pass from cancer vs a cancer survivor. It's only real when it happens to you.

That's the individualism that really prevents us from not just tackling Covid, but racism, poverty and whatever else ails society.

I replied to IC also, but Christianity is very logical once you believe The Bible. I'm not saying everything is explainable and can be figured out, but why God made everything and how He loves are all shown and proven throughout The Bible. If you don't believe The Bible which is your choice, then of course it becomes very illogical to you. I only try to explain Christianity is not something you believe just because out of nowhere. He might not be saying that, It sounded like that from what IC was saying yesterday, so I just stepped in.

Also you said you're not leaning toward any political parties. You said you're logical. But here is the thing. We all have the datas and scientific proofs. But what you do with them is your choice, isn't it? Some people ignore datas altogether, some people believe them as God's words. Today is Tuesday. That is logically and objectively true. Covid has 1.7% death rate. That is true (besides the real number of solely Covid deaths). How we come to conclude as a consequence is subjective as IC is also saying. Therefore, you have no choice but to be subjective dealing with logics you choose to believe. Preferring a political party is a subjective matter as much as not preferring anything.

BTW, this is nothing to brag about, but I've had too many friends and even a family member died out of cancer. One of my best friends is a cancer survivor. It's not because someone doesn't have any problems around that they don't take Covid as serious as you do. It's because they choose to believe something out of their own logical sense which might be illogical to you. 1.7% death rate to me is not something that requires sacrifices of 98.3%.

 

[Mety]

I already made an apology saying I now see 1.7% is the accurate data. Why skipping that altogether and spreading only the things I said as a mistake? Also when did I say datas you provided didn't mean anything? No offense, but what you do seems like a reporting from fake news networks lol.

Well, if you knew what I've been saying all along then why waste time with me since we're saying the same thing?

Because you continue to dismiss the data points...i.e. your claim that there is no evidence proving long term effects or somehow there are no studies/data showing the effectiveness of mandatory protocols like masks and social distancing. 

If you acknowledge those data points, it makes little sense to not at least reconsider your stance or make an alternative argument.  I mean..is your stance the same whether the mortality rate is 0.1%, or 1.7%, or 17%?

That's why I made the point about Qwerty...he is seldomly dismiss data points and acknowledge the data presented...he just states that he has a higher risk tolerance. 

If that is you, just say that.  Just say that you are okay with a 1.7% mortality rate and hospitals being nearly full.  Just don't water it down by saying that the data is not true or that the disease is being overblown or hyped by the media.

When did I dismiss your datas? 1 year to you is a long term. To me, not really. I've had allergy all this year. Is that a long term effects and should I lock myself down alone?

You ignored my question from other thread. So you think masks and distancing should be *mandatory* in the US? Meaning possible fines, beat ups (like some other country as IHO mentioned) or jail times?

1.7% and 17% are very different and you know it. 1.7% is not something to sacrifice 98.3% IMHO.

I don't remember watering anything down. I've been saying 0.1 or even 2 % is not something that should put everyone into mandatory curfews and close downs. Again, there is the objective matter. What we come to believe are subjective.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I replied to IC also, but Christianity is very logical once you believe The Bible. I'm not saying everything is explainable and can be figured out, but why God made everything and how He loves are all shown and proven throughout The Bible. If you don't believe The Bible which is your choice, then of course it becomes very illogical to you. I only try to explain Christianity is not something you believe just because out of nowhere. He might not be saying that, It sounded like that from what IC was saying yesterday, so I just stepped in.

Also you said you're not leaning toward any political parties. You said you're logical. But here is the thing. We all have the datas and scientific proofs. But what you do with them is your choice, isn't it? Some people ignore datas altogether, some people believe them as God's words. Today is Tuesday. That is logically and objectively true. Covid has 1.7% death rate. That is true (besides the real number of solely Covid deaths). How we come to conclude as a consequence is subjective as IC is also saying. Therefore, you have no choice but to be subjective dealing with logics you choose to believe. Preferring a political party is a subjective matter as much as not preferring anything.

BTW, this is nothing to brag about, but I've had too many friends and even a family member died out of cancer. One of my best friends is a cancer survivor. It's not because someone doesn't have any problems around that they don't take Covid as serious as you do. It's because they choose to believe something out of their own logical sense which might be illogical to you. 1.7% death rate to me is not something that requires sacrifices of 98.3%.

personal sense and objective logic are very different things...personal choice and sense are fine when you are dealing with one's own decisions.  But you cannot use subjective beliefs and sense when making decision on a social level...because by definition, a society requires individuals to give up rights. 

Government officials need to make decisions on a social level.  A person may think that s/he can drive while intoxicated but the state does not.  Why is 0.08 a magical number?  It really isn't but the result of a social decision on what the state of California states as the level of acceptable risk. 

Yes...people can have varying tolerances for risk..just check people's stock portfolios/401K accounts.  But people should not replace their own risk tolerance level for others and certainly not ones that the state/government have decided to be the socially acceptable risk tolerance.  It is not okay for someone to say that s/he have the subjective belief that s/he can drive a 0.12 BAC.

 

[Mety]

I can prove Christianity God as the only God ONLY IF you believe The Bible as the inerrant Word of God. Believing as such might be a subjective matter for you, but once we settle that matter, The Bible provides plenty of evidences for God. That's what the Apostles were doing after Jesus ascended. Proving Jesus as the Son of God from the Scriptures. Fully believing is the work of the Holy Spirit, but logically the science and datas keep proving the existence of God even until now.

There are other things also such real believing Christians' fruits. That is love. I'm talking about the love that is defined from The Bible, not what the world is saying of it or how you define in your own way. So you're partly right saying that religion is not logical, but once you take the Word of God as is, everything becomes very logical for Christian believers at least. Not saying you're doing that, but I don't think believing just because is that good idea IMHO.

You cannot say something is objective logically but referencing itself.  It is not objectively logical to say that something is right or wrong because I said so.  That may make sense to you but it is not objectively logical.

This is what I mean by reductive reasoning....you take objective data and fit them into an existing conclusion.  What you believe is to be a "logical" explanation is just you trying to reaffirming your own beliefs.  That is the opposite of logic.

Again...your explanations are subjective.  Go talk to a Muslim or a Buddhist or an agnostic and they will each have their own explanation on things like love or creation.  There is no way that you can prove that you are more right than them from an objective standard.  It's just your belief.

You keep thinking or saying I somehow think I'm more right than others. Is that what I'm saying though? You defined Christianity as something that is illogical yesterday. That's why I stepped in and tried to explain it very logical if you believe The Bible.

I'll use what you said with Covid data objectivity and subjectivity -
The Bible is the truth and that is objective... what you do with it is subjective.

What?  Bible is not "objectively" truth...it is true only if you are a Christian or a Jew.  For a Muslim, the Koran is the truth.  For agnostics, the Bible is just a collection of fairy tales.

I did not say Christianity is illogical...I said religion by its very nature is not objectively logic because it requires faith.  You keep skipping that first part...the most important part of Christianity is the faith.  That's why salvation is based upon faith alone...you just need to believe. 

Up until the last 400 to 500 years...most people did not even have access to the Bible...they just heard from prophets and/or the Church.

Again...you are reading what you want to read.  I never said that you said that you were more "right"...I said that you cannot objectively prove that your belief is more "right" than anyone else's beliefs, which is what objective logic requires.

What words coming out of a so -called Christian believer. I'm sure you're very popular with all others. Well, I'm sure God can still use you to do His wonders.

But you got some parts correct. Church was the place you hear the Word of God until we could have access to the Bible physically. How irony of that coming from someone who thinks we don't need physical church anymore.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

When did I dismiss your datas? 1 year to you is a long term. To me, not really. I've had allergy all this year. Is that a long term effects and should I lock myself down alone?

You ignored my question from other thread. So you think masks and distancing should be *mandatory* in the US? Meaning possible fines, beat ups (like some other country as IHO mentioned) or jail times?

1.7% and 17% are very different and you know it. 1.7% is not something to sacrifice 98.3% IMHO.

I don't remember watering anything down. I've been saying 0.1 or even 2 % is not something that should put everyone into mandatory curfews and close downs. Again, there is the objective matter. What we come to believe are subjective.

Again...you keep doing this thing where you believe that all terms are relative.  There are objective definitions for things like "long term", "chronic", and "permanent".  When scientists and researchers study effects...they use objective terms to define what they find.  An effect can be long-term but not permanent. 

A problem that is caused by a disease or treatment of a disease and may continue for months or years. Long-term side effects of cancer treatment include heart, lung, kidney, or gastrointestinal tract problems; pain, numbness, tingling, loss of feeling, or heat or cold sensitivity in the hands or feet; fatigue; hearing loss; cataracts; and dry eyes or dry mouth

https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/long-term-side-effect

I literally have no idea what you mean by your allergies. 

I have repeatedly answered your questions.  I do think masks and social distancing should be mandatory as a matter of law...enforcement and punishment for that mandatory restriction can vary.  Just like people drive 70 mph in a 65 mph is very different from someone driving 130.  Why does everything need to be black and white?

If you are fine with 1.7% mortality rate, that is certainly with in your right but there are plenty of others who are not.  People shouldn't get to flaunt orders and laws just because they do not agree with the risk level assigned.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

What words coming out of a so -called Christian believer. I'm sure you're very popular with all others. Well, I'm sure God can still use you to do His wonders.

But you got some parts correct. Church was the place you hear the Word of God until we could have access to the Bible physically. How irony of that coming from someone who thinks we don't need physical church anymore.

So..you are telling me that I am not Christian enough for you?  I can differentiate between my personal beliefs and the world value.  How do you speak to non-Christian about Christianity unless you can approach them in a manner and in a way that they understand and appreciate?  I guess you just ascribe to the hammer method.

Church does not require a physical location...it was not for the early Christian and it was not for Jesus.  Apostles actually separate to spread the Word of God rather than hunkering down in one place.  Jesus walked all over Israel to speak about God.  Early Christians met in their homes to fellowship and worship. 

There is nothing requiring that Christians have to congregate in an indoor building...certainly not during a time of a global pandemic.  The God I believe in can function just fine in this pandemic or any other situations/scenarios.

 

[nosuchreality]

1.7% and 17% are very different and you know it. 1.7% is not something to sacrifice 98.3% IMHO.

So 1.7% dying is less important than expecting 98.3% to be washing their hands, wearing a masks in public temporarily and maintaining social distancing to limit effects and allow us keep businesses open?

Wearing a mask is so onerous that 1.7% dying is a fair trade off?

 

[qwerty]

1.7% and 17% are very different and you know it. 1.7% is not something to sacrifice 98.3% IMHO.

So 1.7% dying is less important than expecting 98.3% to be washing their hands, wearing a masks in public temporarily and maintaining social distancing to limit effects and allow us keep businesses open?

Wearing a mask is so onerous that 1.7% dying is a fair trade off?

Are masks really going to address the issue? It?s the behavior of people who choose to go to bars, restaurants etc or even family gatherings, etc.

 

[Mety]

What words coming out of a so -called Christian believer. I'm sure you're very popular with all others. Well, I'm sure God can still use you to do His wonders.

But you got some parts correct. Church was the place you hear the Word of God until we could have access to the Bible physically. How irony of that coming from someone who thinks we don't need physical church anymore.

So..you are telling me that I am not Christian enough for you?  I can differentiate between my personal beliefs and the world value.  How do you speak to non-Christian about Christianity unless you can approach them in a manner and in a way that they understand and appreciate?  I guess you just ascribe to the hammer method.

Church does not require a physical location...it was not for the early Christian and it was not for Jesus.  Apostles actually separate to spread the Word of God rather than hunkering down in one place.  Jesus walked all over Israel to speak about God.  Early Christians met in their homes to fellowship and worship. 

There is nothing requiring that Christians have to congregate in an indoor building...certainly not during a time of a global pandemic.  The God I believe in can function just fine in this pandemic or any other situations/scenarios.

That's why I said God can use someone like you also to spread gospel. It's just a bit sad that a Christian person says The Bible is not the objective truth in defense of other religions. That's kind of like how Joel Osteen and many others do. Christians should present the gospel as is which does require calling out one's sins and repentance and the inerrancy of The Bible, then let God do the rest to regenerate that person. Of course we can still be friends and be nice and loving while we present all those messages at the same time. It's not like hammer in and out fast.

We've talked about church gathering before. I provided biblical verses to back my position, but I guess you went to Taiwan then and just didn't answer back.

I'm fine with church meeting at someone's home. Except that's not really allowed at this time. You said we can do so by just not calling it a church or worship, but come one, really? Why does strip clubs get to be boldly open without hiding anything while churches have to?

 

[Mety]

When did I dismiss your datas? 1 year to you is a long term. To me, not really. I've had allergy all this year. Is that a long term effects and should I lock myself down alone?

You ignored my question from other thread. So you think masks and distancing should be *mandatory* in the US? Meaning possible fines, beat ups (like some other country as IHO mentioned) or jail times?

1.7% and 17% are very different and you know it. 1.7% is not something to sacrifice 98.3% IMHO.

I don't remember watering anything down. I've been saying 0.1 or even 2 % is not something that should put everyone into mandatory curfews and close downs. Again, there is the objective matter. What we come to believe are subjective.

Again...you keep doing this thing where you believe that all terms are relative.  There are objective definitions for things like "long term", "chronic", and "permanent".  When scientists and researchers study effects...they use objective terms to define what they find.  An effect can be long-term but not permanent. 

A problem that is caused by a disease or treatment of a disease and may continue for months or years. Long-term side effects of cancer treatment include heart, lung, kidney, or gastrointestinal tract problems; pain, numbness, tingling, loss of feeling, or heat or cold sensitivity in the hands or feet; fatigue; hearing loss; cataracts; and dry eyes or dry mouth

https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/long-term-side-effect

I literally have no idea what you mean by your allergies. 

I have repeatedly answered your questions.  I do think masks and social distancing should be mandatory as a matter of law...enforcement and punishment for that mandatory restriction can vary.  Just like people drive 70 mph in a 65 mph is very different from someone driving 130.  Why does everything need to be black and white?

If you are fine with 1.7% mortality rate, that is certainly with in your right but there are plenty of others who are not.  People shouldn't get to flaunt orders and laws just because they do not agree with the risk level assigned.

Ok. So you think masks and distancing should be mandatory with law enforcement. I don't think so. There's our difference even though we both might be practicing these guidelines with or without enforcement.

I'm not saying 1.7% is nothing and fine. I'm saying 98.3% is a bigger number. Not by a little, but a A LOT. Logic.

 

[eyephone]

1.7% and 17% are very different and you know it. 1.7% is not something to sacrifice 98.3% IMHO.

So 1.7% dying is less important than expecting 98.3% to be washing their hands, wearing a masks in public temporarily and maintaining social distancing to limit effects and allow us keep businesses open?

Wearing a mask is so onerous that 1.7% dying is a fair trade off?

Are masks really going to address the issue? It?s the behavior of people who choose to go to bars, restaurants etc or even family gatherings, etc.

Don?t wear a mask and find out. People say this and that on TI. But at the end you and someone else on TI wears a mask.

I just saw a video of a person had a condition after surviving covid. That person could not put his tongue back in his mouth due to covid. He had to see a specialist and over time his tongue came back to normal.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

That's why I said God can use someone like you also to spread gospel. It's just a bit sad that a Christian person says The Bible is not the objective truth in defense of other religions. That's kind of like how Joel Osteen and many others do. Christians should present the gospel as is which does require calling out one's sins and repentance and the inerrancy of The Bible, then let God do the rest to regenerate that person. Of course we can still be friends and be nice and loving while we present all those messages at the same time. It's not like hammer in and out fast.

We've talked about church gathering before. I provided biblical verses to back my position, but I guess you went to Taiwan then and just didn't answer back.

I'm fine with church meeting at someone's home. Except that's not really allowed at this time. You said we can do so by just not calling it a church or worship, but come one, really? Why does strip clubs get to be boldly open without hiding anything while churches have to?

Again...you have a hard time separating your own beliefs from those of others or the world.  The term "objective" as used in the discussion was as to the objective standard of the world.  In God's world, there are no Muslims or non-believers...to have this discussion in the Christian bubble is pointless.  I have my own personal beliefs but that doesn't change the worldly "objective" standard of logic. 

Jesus didn't present the Bible in the fashion you stated most of the time...He spoke in parables and just helped people. You sound like the Pharisees who complained to Jesus about Him just hanging out and eating with non-believers.

Again...my God can thrive in any environment.  Zoom meetings are just as good for me as physical gathering because my faith and belief in God does not require any specific rules or requirements.  I am my own priest with a direct connection to Jesus and God. 

You also keep mischaracterizing my prior statements...you can call it whatever you want as long as it has fewer than 10 people.  Call it a dinner party...call it Church...call it worship.  The issue the number of people congregating...not the purpose.

We can go back and forth as to what the Bible says (and I have quoted you verses in the past) but only one of us actually look at what Jesus, Apostle, and Paul modeled in the New Testament.  They didn't congregate in a set place, they moved around all the time, and they were often separated from each other and/or alone.  Your need for rules and guidelines is pretty interesting considering you are arguing against rules and guidelines re COVID.

BTW...you keep missing the part about how the State of California was opposing the strip club in that case and the judge granted the relief sought by the strip club.  The matter is likely to be appealed and the appellate court will likely overturn it.

You also keep missing the part where the superior court actually granted Grace Church's initial request to reopen but then was overturned on appeal. 

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Ok. So you think masks and distancing should be mandatory with law enforcement. I don't think so. There's our difference even though we both might be practicing these guidelines with or without enforcement.

I'm not saying 1.7% is nothing and fine. I'm saying 98.3% is a bigger number. Not by a little, but a A LOT. Logic.

Problem is not you or me...it's the other people including the 14 states that had no mandates that keep the disease going and ruining it for the rest of us. 

It doesn't matter if I drive at the speed limit if a drunk driver hits me at 80 mph. 

That's not logic...that's subject risk tolerance.