beth

No, I have to attend and now SARS had added a level of anxiety to the mix. I pointed out that if god was there, why would she allow for her people to spread disease while in her sanctuary? But it does. When one church member becomes ill, over half the church ends up with it before it burns out.

Sabine Grant

It is only valid if the person who declares that attending church with sick people is dangerous to her health will also avoid any kind of gathering held in an enclosed area. In other words, a church does not present more risks of infection than any other public place where people are in close contact for a certain amount of time.( that is for airborne germs). However the most recent studies show that SARS may be communicated by infected fecal matter or other body fluids and there is no proof that the virus is airborne. So if anyone makes a decision to not attend any church for fear of contracting SARS, it appears to be a rather misinformed decision.

Bree

Tut tut, Sabine. As a health-care worker you should know that HIV cannot be spread by normal, every-day contact. The transmission of infected bodily fluids (through the sharing of needles, blood transfusions, and sexual contact) is necessary for infection. SARS appears to be much more easily transmitted.

Sabine Grant

Hello blondegoddess... the same applies to any public area where people are in close contact. Office workers, schools, movie theaters etc... you name it! And God believer folks are in many of those places where they can catch a cold or the flu from a sick schoolmate or co worker etc...in other words, I do not percieve churches to be the culprit of infectious diseases more than any other enclosed public area.
Actualy the best method of infectious disease control is to wash hands.... any time you touch a door handle, you are susceptible to contamination if you rub your eyes, carry your hand to your mouth etc...
As far as the sanctuary goes, depending if the religious individual believes that God only resides in a building called a " church" or " temple", then I can see how it may seem that god ought to privildege those who enter the " sanctuary". But most modern christians do not restrict the presence of God to a church or temple or tabernacle. Some christians in countries where religious gatherings are prohibited in designated buildings, will meet in their homes.
For me personaly, I do not consider a church to be anymore sanctified or holier....I attended church gatherings in the open air overseas, in homes, in basements etc... So I would not worry too much about getting ill because I attend any church. Nor would I hold God accountable for preserving one group of peole over another.

Bree

I'm interested in hearing you expound upon this statement.

Sabine Grant

I made the comparaison because of the same kind of paranoid response so many misinformed people gave to the spread of HIV. The fear of contamination is a crowd phenomenon which leads to extreme reactions ... such as avoiding church. I am sure with your mini class you have just enlightened so many of us health care workers who even care for HIV positive patients.

Bree

You are the only person to have made commentary. I was trying to draw a comparison between HIV and SARS, as you were - and apparently I failed in clarity at approximately the same level as you did.

Sabine Grant

In my response to blondegoddess' statement that God ought to prevent infections in his sanctuary, I pointed that there is no particular reason why God ought to make a " church" free of germs. It appears her statement is based on the belief that a sanctuary is a place where God's presence ought to be more manifested than any other place. Why should it be? Again unless a religious individual believes that a sanctuary has some type of " magic" or " miraculous" character, there is no ground to consider that God is to be held more accountable for any kind of priviledges because one happens to be physicaly attending any church.
It is my belief that the presence of God is manifested thru the presence of believers as they gather no matter where they are. It is important you do not take my statement out of context otherwise you will remain " puzzled" as to what I am expressing.
But if you prefer to take one sentence out of context as you did previously, eventualy I will cease to attempt to place it all back within context so there can be no further misinterpretation of my thoughts.

Sabine Grant

So let us move on and can we agree that the fear of contamination can lead people to unreasonable responses? lepers were treated as outcasts until medical research defined the actual risks of contamination. Still only some 40 years ago when I lived in Senegal, lepers were still homeless individuals rejected by their own families. They were the " untouchables". The local catholic dispensary would gather them off the streets of Dakar and treat them as well as provide for their basic needs.

Local asian communities in the Us are at risk to become the target of that new SARS paranoia as people will avoid doing business with US asians... I bet business in Chinatown has gone down hill already.
What is interesting here is the focus on SARS when TB is far more deadly and contagious and rampant ( many cases in Fl. ). And to my knowledge there is no mandatory use of the BCG vaccine in the US to prevent TB while in France for example it is mandatory.

Bree

Here's how I look at it:

I was always taught that God does not reside in a building (just as you said). His Holy Spirit resides where ever two or more meet in His name. Therefore if a group of people meet in His name, and the meeting happens to take place in church, the Holy Spirit will reside in that place.

If that's the case, then why can't the Holy Spirit (an extension of God), which has manifested itself because of the group of believers, cleanse the area where the believers are meeting? If He's already there, then why doesn't He shift himself? Or is it simply that God is under no obligation to do anything?