3 ms·

I just find it weird that nobody is bringing up Matthew 6:5. I can hardly imagine any example of "praying to be seen by men" purer than the politicization of op

I just find it weird that nobody is bringing up Matthew 6:5. I can hardly imagine any example of "praying to be seen by men" purer than the politicization of opening churches right now. I have this feeling like, surely the cognitive dissonance will hit any minute now? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_6:5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_6:5

Noos 6y ago
You are forgetting Matthew 18, 19-20: "Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them." There is also the idea of Communion, which is a religious gathering instituted by Jesus himself, in Luke 22. Paul also exhorts believers not to "forsake the assembling of themselves" in Hebrews 10. Communal gathering as a church is actually a religious doctrine. The details of how one should do so is really a thorny issue, and the state saying "only so many may do so" is perilously close to breaching separation. It has nothing to do with praying loud to appear religious in public to get praise from men.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  I won't debate your interpretation of scripture, but it's not relevant to your last sentence which seems disconnected and unsupported to me. And palpably absurd. Trying to convince me is definitely not worth your effort. To act like you care what I think is an indictment itself.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  Church services often involve singing and speaking loudly in confined spaces. Yet there's no evidence doing so is necessary to survive. Proven mitigations against real threats are more important than the unprovable 'benefits' of religion. No matter how old, popular, or eloquent the source of the religion.
kmonsen 6y ago
First of all, a religious text is not relevant in us court case, even if about a religious case. Secondly, Christianity as practiced today is very different and not something Jesus would have understood at all so in many ways the Bible and Jesus is not key to understanding American Christianity.
- aspenmayer 6y ago
  To say Jesus wouldn't understand modern Christianity is presupposing the Trinity is false, isn’t it? Otherwise, Jesus is part of the tripartite godhead and is aware of everything the Tetragrammaton and the Holy Spirit are aware of, which is more than the totality of existence of space-time. Not to make this a religious discussion, just striving for a steelman interpretation of the religious logical stance.
  - kmonsen 6y ago
    I’m not making an argument about Jesus but about his supposed followers. Anyway, the main point is that US law and the Bible are not connected. It’s still legal to eat shrimp and pork, and usury became legal when that was convenient.
    - aspenmayer 6y ago
      I don’t mean to miss your point; however, to many people, US law and the Bible are connected. The Moral Majority[1] used and modern religious right use the Bible as justification for their social and economic policies.[2] It could be argued how Biblical their policies are, but to say they are not connected in many voters’ and believers’ minds is to misunderstand them and what they believe, religiously and politically. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority [2] https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/corporate-america-invented-religious-right-conservative-roosevelt-princeton-117030 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/corporate-am...
toast0 6y ago
It's not really the Supreme Court's job to interpret a religion's sacred texts and tell the adherents that they're doing it wrong.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  No, it's the adherents' job though to consider if bringing something to the Supreme Court is consistent with their beliefs.

Noos 6y ago

You are forgetting Matthew 18, 19-20: "Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them." There is also the idea of Communion, which is a religious gathering instituted by Jesus himself, in Luke 22. Paul also exhorts believers not to "forsake the assembling of themselves" in Hebrews 10. Communal gathering as a church is actually a religious doctrine. The details of how one should do so is really a thorny issue, and the state saying "only so many may do so" is perilously close to breaching separation. It has nothing to do with praying loud to appear religious in public to get praise from men.

perl4ever 6y ago
I won't debate your interpretation of scripture, but it's not relevant to your last sentence which seems disconnected and unsupported to me. And palpably absurd. Trying to convince me is definitely not worth your effort. To act like you care what I think is an indictment itself.
paulryanrogers 6y ago
Church services often involve singing and speaking loudly in confined spaces. Yet there's no evidence doing so is necessary to survive. Proven mitigations against real threats are more important than the unprovable 'benefits' of religion. No matter how old, popular, or eloquent the source of the religion.

kmonsen 6y ago

First of all, a religious text is not relevant in us court case, even if about a religious case. Secondly, Christianity as practiced today is very different and not something Jesus would have understood at all so in many ways the Bible and Jesus is not key to understanding American Christianity.

aspenmayer 6y ago
To say Jesus wouldn't understand modern Christianity is presupposing the Trinity is false, isn’t it? Otherwise, Jesus is part of the tripartite godhead and is aware of everything the Tetragrammaton and the Holy Spirit are aware of, which is more than the totality of existence of space-time. Not to make this a religious discussion, just striving for a steelman interpretation of the religious logical stance.
- kmonsen 6y ago
  I’m not making an argument about Jesus but about his supposed followers. Anyway, the main point is that US law and the Bible are not connected. It’s still legal to eat shrimp and pork, and usury became legal when that was convenient.
  - aspenmayer 6y ago
    I don’t mean to miss your point; however, to many people, US law and the Bible are connected. The Moral Majority[1] used and modern religious right use the Bible as justification for their social and economic policies.[2] It could be argued how Biblical their policies are, but to say they are not connected in many voters’ and believers’ minds is to misunderstand them and what they believe, religiously and politically. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority [2] https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/corporate-america-invented-religious-right-conservative-roosevelt-princeton-117030 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/corporate-am...

toast0 6y ago

It's not really the Supreme Court's job to interpret a religion's sacred texts and tell the adherents that they're doing it wrong.

perl4ever 6y ago
No, it's the adherents' job though to consider if bringing something to the Supreme Court is consistent with their beliefs.