Former Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger calls for prayer and fasting for employees
www.foxbusiness.com
Former Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger took to social media to invite people to pray and fast for the chipmaker's employees, saying the company is going through a "difficult period."

Edit: Fuck some of these comments Y’all sick in the head. I’m out.

  • zephorah@lemm.eeEnglish
    472·
    16 days ago

    That is a primary intention of the three Abrahamic religions, hence all the old societal law embedded in the texts. Hence why so many prefer cherry picking the laws, even the “believers” know they’re outdated.

    They’re intended as a means to rule people but in much much smaller numbers. The population base is far too unwieldy for any of it, and has been for a while.

    I’m digressing.

    The idea of prayer is embedded in that form of rule. Don’t ask the leadership, ask god. It’s not my fault god didn’t answer your prayers, that’s on you for not having enough faith. Here, let me help you with that by advising you to tighten up your obedience to the societal laws we put in the text, then you can try praying again. Maybe, if you’re good enough, maybe then your prayer will be answered. Just don’t ask me, the leadership, to try to solve it.

    It’s a great way to get people to put their heads down and obey the (religious) government. Again though, intended for smaller population at inception.

    • SquiffSquiff@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      16 days ago

      There are rather more than three Abrahamic religions, there’s also:

      • Baha’i (Corrected)
      • Rastafari
      • Momormonism

      Amongst others

      • wjrii@lemmy.worldEnglish
        8·
        16 days ago

        While there are certainly some bonkers deviations at the level of theology (Mormonism theology tends to be childishly literal where it departs from Nicene Christianity, as it is at its heart an anti-intellectual and inherently out-group long-con), and of course there are the extra sacred texts and culty tendencies, Mormons view themselves as firmly within the Christian tradition, and they are culturally more in line than not with Christians than other Abrahamic adherents. I think it’s stretching to count them as an entirely different religion.

        • Flax@feddit.ukEnglish
          4·
          16 days ago

          Muslims also view themselves within christianity, as true followers of a christ which they believe to not be God. They believe that Mohammed restored the true religion, similarly to how Mormons see Joseph Smith as restoring the true religion. The main difference is that Mormons are starting to now use the Christian label- which would be the same if a Christian started claiming to be Muslim (one who submits) or a Protestant using the label “Catholic” (Universal)(Which most mainline Protestants actually do). Doesn’t mean they’re the same religion as a Mohammed-following-Muslim or the same denomination as Roman Catholicism

          • wjrii@lemmy.worldEnglish
            8·
            16 days ago

            I think it’s fairer to describe Mormons as nontrinitarian Christians, sort of a “neo-Arian heresy”. They specifically believe Christ to be part of a uniquely divine trinity with God the Father and the Holy Ghost, and that Christ died to redeem humanity and was resurrected (at which point he floated home for the weekend then stopped in on all the Jewish folks living in the Americas, of course).

            They also believe he was created as a “first among equals” son of God and, once you tug on a couple of uniquely Mormon threads, that God the Father probably had actual relations with Mary to conceive Jesus’s body, which after resurrection was “perfected” and divine, just like his dad’s.

            So anyway, Jesus holds a centrality to Mormon religion in a way he simply doesn’t for Islam, even with the large number of roles Muslims believe Jesus played and will play in the future. While his nature is different for Mormons, his role in their faith is much more analogous to “vanilla” Nicene Christianity. He is part of a tripartite Godhead and is their Savior, and faith in that is necessary for an individual’s salvation.

            Thomas Aquinas would roll his eyes at the unexplored repercussions of it all, but Mormons have thirteen “articles of faith” that we were supposed to learn as kids. A lot of the nonsense follows from a half-educated conman in WAY over his head trying to keep it all going and expand his own authority (including the authority to sleep with whomever he wanted) but specifically NOT to move beyond something his adherents would identify as Christian.

            Even if he failed at that, and you can argue he did, I would argue that the specifics of the theological niceties only tell part of the story, and the Mormon movement has to be viewed in its cultural context, and Mormons have always self-identified as Christians in a way that was not merely semantic.

            • Flax@feddit.ukEnglish
              2·
              16 days ago

              LDS Mormons aren’t Arian, they are tritheist.

              Mormonism as well contains additional overriding scripture, like how Islam has the Qur’an in comparison with Christianity or how Christianity has the New Testament in comparison with old Judaism. Which seems make them separate religions, as all of these extra scriptures make the faiths significantly different from each other.

              All of these religions have God as the centrepoint (although LDS Mormonism could be less so due to it being polytheist)

              Yes, Mormonism puts a focus on a character called Jesus who’s somewhat based on Jesus of Nazareth which Islam also does, but there’s also a sect of Hinduism which does the same. Is this Christianity, too?

              • wjrii@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                15 days ago

                Okay, I think at some point we’re talking past each other more than to each other. You are clearly much more invested than I am in the relative truth claims, categorization, and internal consistency of various bronze-age mythologies and their propagandized descendants.

                You’re drawing bright lines in places that I don’t find particularly interesting as a non-believer more interested in secular history than apologetic theology. Still, I suspect the bright lines are very important in that context. If you would like to claim this one as a win, please feel free. Have a lovely weekend!