One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Can anyone see that the left/democrats h**e GOD?
Page 1 of 6 next> last>>
Apr 18, 2020 09:27:15   #
Capt-jack Loc: Home
 
Can anyone see that the left/democrats h**e GOD?


https://www.lifenews.com/2020/04/17/california-county-bans-churches-from-signing-in-online-worship-services/

Reply
Apr 18, 2020 09:34:23   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 


No...

Reply
Apr 18, 2020 09:35:16   #
Lonewolf
 


It's not banning anything it's social distancing they can sing but not in large groups like the choir in Seattle whuch met for practice and now last count 3 are dead and most are sick

Reply
Apr 18, 2020 09:46:59   #
Capt-jack Loc: Home
 
Lonewolf wrote:
It's not banning anything it's social distancing they can sing but not in large groups like the choir in Seattle whuch met for practice and now last count 3 are dead and most are sick


So how does one social distancing on-line?

Reply
Apr 18, 2020 09:53:23   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Capt-jack wrote:
So how does one social distancing on-line?


One doesn't gather a church choir together...

Simply allow each member to sing from their own home..

Reply
Apr 18, 2020 11:00:37   #
Lonewolf
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
One doesn't gather a church choir together...

Simply allow each member to sing from their own home..


morning

Reply
Apr 18, 2020 16:06:14   #
JohnCorrespondent
 


According to the article, the original prohibitions were:

(A):

"...prohibits religious leaders from singing in online worship services unless they are singing in their homes by themselves or with their families."

(B):

“'… no singing or use of wind instruments, harmonicas or other instruments that could spread C****-** through projected droplets shall be permitted unless the recording of the event is done at one’s residence.'

"The order applies to churches, temples, concert halls, auditoriums and playhouses."

I would agree that (A), and possibly (B), if exactly as reported in the article, is perhaps poorly worded, and thereby technically it might be unreasonable; but it is not outrageously so, if one considers the (obvious) intention behind it:

The intention (which I think is clear enough) is to avoid situations where t***smissions of the v***s could happen. If you read them with that in mind, they are actually quite reasonable though perhaps poorly worded (if exactly as quoted in the article).

The article then goes on to mischaracterize the situation:

(C):

"...prohibited from singing".

This (C) is not at all the same as (A) or (B)! People can sing all they want as long as they're at home, or six feet away from anybody in the "churches, temples, concert halls, auditoriums and playhouses", _and_ do not share instruments that could carry the v***s from one person to another.

(D):

(other topics in the article, getting further and further from the original prohibitions, but falsely implying they are related to them)

Finally, the idea that these people, who are obviously trying to limit the spread of the v***s, "h**e God" is foolish. They are continuing their church service practices as well as they can while, at the same time, being responsible about not making people sick or dead.

I cannot be sure what your idea of "God" is, but my idea of God is that he'd like us to behave responsibly toward our fellow-man.

I've attended two kinds of online church services recently. In one, the people in the church building were maintaining a distance of at least six feet apart from each other. In the other, the people in the church building were much closer together (which happened to be particularly close and particularly noticeable when they were playing music together -- obviously neglecting to do "social distancing" (i.e., physical distancing).

The article is misleading. God, as I suppose him to be, would disapprove of that article.

I notice the article includes the phrase "As Fox News reports, ...". Fox "News" and lifenews.com are misleading you and thereby wasting your time and energy, unless you simply _like_ to claim that "left/Democrats h**e GOD". In that case they are giving you false fuel for your false ideas about "left", "Democrats", and "GOD". Get a clue from those "liberals" and "Democrats" in Mendocino County; _they_ aren't making false claims; they're trying to protect their fellow-man from sickness and death, _and_ they are conducting their church services as well as they can in the circumstances.

Sorry if I've spoiled your (and Fox's and lifenews's) fun, but really, it's not nice to say those people "h**e God". And it's not true either. It's misinformation: slurring a whole class of people, when all they're doing is trying to behave responsibly.

Reply
Apr 18, 2020 16:44:31   #
Searching Loc: Rural Southwest VA
 
JohnCorrespondent wrote:
According to the article, the original prohibitions were:

(A):

"...prohibits religious leaders from singing in online worship services unless they are singing in their homes by themselves or with their families."

(B):

“'… no singing or use of wind instruments, harmonicas or other instruments that could spread C****-** through projected droplets shall be permitted unless the recording of the event is done at one’s residence.'

"The order applies to churches, temples, concert halls, auditoriums and playhouses."

I would agree that (A), and possibly (B), if exactly as reported in the article, is perhaps poorly worded, and thereby technically it might be unreasonable; but it is not outrageously so, if one considers the (obvious) intention behind it:

The intention (which I think is clear enough) is to avoid situations where t***smissions of the v***s could happen. If you read them with that in mind, they are actually quite reasonable though perhaps poorly worded (if exactly as quoted in the article).

The article then goes on to mischaracterize the situation:

(C):

"...prohibited from singing".

This (C) is not at all the same as (A) or (B)! People can sing all they want as long as they're at home, or six feet away from anybody in the "churches, temples, concert halls, auditoriums and playhouses", _and_ do not share instruments that could carry the v***s from one person to another.

(D):

(other topics in the article, getting further and further from the original prohibitions, but falsely implying they are related to them)

Finally, the idea that these people, who are obviously trying to limit the spread of the v***s, "h**e God" is foolish. They are continuing their church service practices as well as they can while, at the same time, being responsible about not making people sick or dead.

I cannot be sure what your idea of "God" is, but my idea of God is that he'd like us to behave responsibly toward our fellow-man.

I've attended two kinds of online church services recently. In one, the people in the church building were maintaining a distance of at least six feet apart from each other. In the other, the people in the church building were much closer together (which happened to be particularly close and particularly noticeable when they were playing music together -- obviously neglecting to do "social distancing" (i.e., physical distancing).

The article is misleading. God, as I suppose him to be, would disapprove of that article.

I notice the article includes the phrase "As Fox News reports, ...". Fox "News" and lifenews.com are misleading you and thereby wasting your time and energy, unless you simply _like_ to claim that "left/Democrats h**e GOD". In that case they are giving you false fuel for your false ideas about "left", "Democrats", and "GOD". Get a clue from those "liberals" and "Democrats" in Mendocino County; _they_ aren't making false claims; they're trying to protect their fellow-man from sickness and death, _and_ they are conducting their church services as well as they can in the circumstances.

Sorry if I've spoiled your (and Fox's and lifenews's) fun, but really, it's not nice to say those people "h**e God". And it's not true either. It's misinformation: slurring a whole class of people, when all they're doing is trying to behave responsibly.
According to the article, the original prohibition... (show quote)


You have provided a community service here today with your thorough dissection, and "mayhaps" quieted at least some fears that there are some among us who really "h**e" God. Hope springs eternal. I should never read the listing of current topics when I'm already in less than a positive mood. lol Earlier today, on FB, I was just about to hit send, but paused, deleted, and came up with a civilized response. Kudos to you for yours here.

Reply
Apr 19, 2020 08:53:07   #
susanblange Loc: USA
 
Hating God is deadly. Proverbs 8:36. "But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all that h**e me love death". We are commanded to love God, and that is the only way to obtain mercy. Exodus 20:6. Ticking God off is also deadly. Psalm 2:12. Most people will h**e God when she comes and 97% of earth's inhabitants will be cut off by fire on Judgment Day. Isaiah 24:6. "He is despised and rejected of men..." Isaiah 53:3. The wicked h**e the righteous and it goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden. Genesis 3:15.

Reply
Apr 19, 2020 10:18:33   #
Searching Loc: Rural Southwest VA
 
susanblange wrote:
Hating God is deadly. Proverbs 8:36. "But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all that h**e me love death". We are commanded to love God, and that is the only way to obtain mercy. Exodus 20:6. Ticking God off is also deadly. Psalm 2:12. Most people will h**e God when she comes and 97% of earth's inhabitants will be cut off by fire on Judgment Day. Isaiah 24:6. "He is despised and rejected of men..." Isaiah 53:3. The wicked h**e the righteous and it goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden. Genesis 3:15.
Hating God is deadly. Proverbs 8:36. "But he ... (show quote)


I love your scriptures, but I'm not sure where "exactly" you're going with them. I hope they're being quoted as further reason that those of us "considered of the Left persuasion" would not be guilty "as charged" because, well, I lean to the left, and none of those scriptures seem to apply to me, nor to a great many of my fellow "Lefties"....One of my favorite passages and I will just paraphrase here.....Isaiah 43:1-3.....when you pass through the waters, I will be with you, and when you pass through the rivers, they will not flow over you. 3 years ago, I had a 0-1% of surviving, and yet, here I am, and I consider that I have a direct line to "The Man".

Reply
Apr 19, 2020 10:52:51   #
kemmer
 

Hahahaha.... There are those on this website who say people who don't like Trump also h**e God and America.

Reply
 
 
Apr 19, 2020 11:43:51   #
greenmountaineer Loc: Vermont
 
kemmer wrote:
Hahahaha.... There are those on this website who say people who don't like Trump also h**e God and America.


But isn't Trump appointed by God, just like George III was?

Reply
Apr 19, 2020 12:22:28   #
susanblange Loc: USA
 
Searching wrote:
I love your scriptures, but I'm not sure where "exactly" you're going with them. I hope they're being quoted as further reason that those of us "considered of the Left persuasion" would not be guilty "as charged" because, well, I lean to the left, and none of those scriptures seem to apply to me, nor to a great many of my fellow "Lefties"....One of my favorite passages and I will just paraphrase here.....Isaiah 43:1-3.....when you pass through the waters, I will be with you, and when you pass through the rivers, they will not flow over you. 3 years ago, I had a 0-1% of surviving, and yet, here I am, and I consider that I have a direct line to "The Man".
I love your scriptures, but I'm not sure where &qu... (show quote)


I am also a life long Democrat, but I come from a wealthy Republican family. Proverbs 11:25. "The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself." This is a reference to prosperity. "Fat" can also mean p***e and corruption when it's applied to a sinner.

Reply
Apr 19, 2020 12:23:16   #
kemmer
 
greenmountaineer wrote:
But isn't Trump appointed by God, just like George III was?

It’s an article of faith among evangelicals.

Reply
Apr 19, 2020 15:40:32   #
Redangel62
 
JohnCorrespondent wrote:
According to the article, the original prohibitions were:

(A):

"...prohibits religious leaders from singing in online worship services unless they are singing in their homes by themselves or with their families."

(B):

“'… no singing or use of wind instruments, harmonicas or other instruments that could spread C****-** through projected droplets shall be permitted unless the recording of the event is done at one’s residence.'

"The order applies to churches, temples, concert halls, auditoriums and playhouses."

I would agree that (A), and possibly (B), if exactly as reported in the article, is perhaps poorly worded, and thereby technically it might be unreasonable; but it is not outrageously so, if one considers the (obvious) intention behind it:

The intention (which I think is clear enough) is to avoid situations where t***smissions of the v***s could happen. If you read them with that in mind, they are actually quite reasonable though perhaps poorly worded (if exactly as quoted in the article).

The article then goes on to mischaracterize the situation:

(C):

"...prohibited from singing".

This (C) is not at all the same as (A) or (B)! People can sing all they want as long as they're at home, or six feet away from anybody in the "churches, temples, concert halls, auditoriums and playhouses", _and_ do not share instruments that could carry the v***s from one person to another.

(D):

(other topics in the article, getting further and further from the original prohibitions, but falsely implying they are related to them)

Finally, the idea that these people, who are obviously trying to limit the spread of the v***s, "h**e God" is foolish. They are continuing their church service practices as well as they can while, at the same time, being responsible about not making people sick or dead.

I cannot be sure what your idea of "God" is, but my idea of God is that he'd like us to behave responsibly toward our fellow-man.

I've attended two kinds of online church services recently. In one, the people in the church building were maintaining a distance of at least six feet apart from each other. In the other, the people in the church building were much closer together (which happened to be particularly close and particularly noticeable when they were playing music together -- obviously neglecting to do "social distancing" (i.e., physical distancing).

The article is misleading. God, as I suppose him to be, would disapprove of that article.

I notice the article includes the phrase "As Fox News reports, ...". Fox "News" and lifenews.com are misleading you and thereby wasting your time and energy, unless you simply _like_ to claim that "left/Democrats h**e GOD". In that case they are giving you false fuel for your false ideas about "left", "Democrats", and "GOD". Get a clue from those "liberals" and "Democrats" in Mendocino County; _they_ aren't making false claims; they're trying to protect their fellow-man from sickness and death, _and_ they are conducting their church services as well as they can in the circumstances.

Sorry if I've spoiled your (and Fox's and lifenews's) fun, but really, it's not nice to say those people "h**e God". And it's not true either. It's misinformation: slurring a whole class of people, when all they're doing is trying to behave responsibly.
According to the article, the original prohibition... (show quote)


It's so very true that Democrats h**e God. They show h**e of God everytime they encourage onther of God's babies to be murdered. Everytime they promote homosexuality and same sex marriage they show they h**e God. Pretty much everytime a Democrat opens their mouth they are showing it. And with every action. You didnt hear about the Democrat that was kicked out of the party for being pro life.? Imagine that!!!!! The definitive of pure evil

Reply
Page 1 of 6 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.