Worldvision makes changes...

[Bruce_Campbell]

I think it was bold of them to make this change. And I think Soup hit the nail on the head: If you're going to specifically target gay folks, you need to target folks for other sins too. In the gospels, Jesus comes out against divorce more than once IIRC (and he doesn't make exceptions for adultery or abuse either, again, IIRC), but never once does he mention homosexuality. (Correct me if I'm wrong here.)

Deepfreeze, if you ever feel the need to get out of deep Conservative Texas, you are more than welcome to come hang out in Austin with us for a couple of days.

(We need to have a CCG get-together one of these days, 4srs.)

[ChickenSoup]

I think it was bold of them to make this change. And I think Soup hit the nail on the head: If you're going to specifically target gay folks, you need to target folks for other sins too. In the gospels, Jesus comes out against divorce more than once IIRC (and he doesn't make exceptions for adultery or abuse either, again, IIRC), but never once does he mention homosexuality. (Correct me if I'm wrong here.)

Deepfreeze, if you ever feel the need to get out of deep Conservative Texas, you are more than welcome to come hang out in Austin with us for a couple of days.

(We need to have a CCG get-together one of these days, 4srs.)

yusssssssss

[ArcticFox]

he supports the Tea Party.

*ahem*

There is nothing wrong with supporting the Tea Party.

But yeah the rest of that stuff is pretty extreme.

[N1ghtBreak3r]

My thought are like Cheryl's. I understand why but don't agree with.

Additionally, someone asked about the whole picking and choosing what sins to include or exclude (or maybe that was IRL...). My thoughts are there is a different between someone who messes up, repents, and moves on and someone who continually chooses to live in sin.

[ArchAngel]

If sin is as granular as it seems in modern theology, then everyone continually sins all the time and you have sins that you don't even think are sins but continually live with it.

[ArcticFox]

If sin is as granular as it seems in modern theology, then everyone continually sins all the time and you have sins that you don't even think are sins but continually live with it.

A sin is a willful act of disobedience against God.

[ArchAngel]

Than those who don't know God are sinless.

[N1ghtBreak3r]

I respectfully disagree. If I don't know what the speed limit is that doesn't mean I can escape the consequences of getting pulled over and getting the ticket that almost always (for me) follows.

[ArcticFox]

Than those who don't know God are sinless.

In a way. Of course, nothing's quite so simple.

I respectfully disagree. If I don't know what the speed limit is that doesn't mean I can escape the consequences of getting pulled over and getting the ticket that almost always (for me) follows.

The reason willful acts of disobedience against God are a problem is that by allowing our own desires to overcome the spiritual benefits of living His commandments, we cut ourselves off from Him. A person who doesn't know God in the first place can't get cut off from something they weren't connected to in the first place.

Of course, once you become aware of the truth, and come to know Him, you have an awareness of what's going on. It's similar to the reason we don't baptize until the person is old enough to understand right and wrong. (Catholic Infant Baptism not adhering to this philosophy.)

[Bruce_Campbell]

Well, it looks like they reversed their decision.

Normally this kinda thing would just tick me off, but today I'm just sad.

[ccgr]

Alrighty then, I wonder how many people dropped their financial commitments over this to make them reverse their decision.

[ArchAngel]

So, they are either disingenuous or spineless. Logical Or, not semantic.
So, single people can't have sexual relations, either?
Why the obsession on controlling people's sex life?

Not sure why this is striking me more vividly after the reversal. It just coming off to me as strongly unethical to pry and rule on their employee's sex lives. Gotta come to a decision on whether or not to pull my funding from them.

Following through on the logic, it brings me to an interesting conundrum. CCGR brings up a good point, how many people must have threatened to pull their contributions because they would hire gay people. I find their actions to be entirely close-minded and reprehensible. But here I am considering pulling sponsorship because they take a controlling interest in their employee's sex lives, and action I find unethical.

Well, partially, it strikes me as uncaring to wave around your contributions to help others hostage for political action, which is one reason why I'm indecisive, but I also understand the important to be able to stand up for what you think is right.

It's not even the content of their beliefs, per se. I don't mind that the owners of Chick-Fil-A oppose gay marriage. Their sandwiches are relatively delicious and they kind of just hold their beliefs and vote and spend their money they way they want to. That's it. God forbid I deprive myself of a high-end fastfood chicken sandwich.

The difference, really, is the about mandating morality on others. What constitutes the right to enforce and expect certain moral restrictions on others? Cases like killing and stealing, or whenever one harms or infringes on another, are relatively easy. As my system of ethics go, I usually draw lines at infringed rights. As soon as one's actions damages another in such a capacity, it's reason enough to exert one's power to stop it. Whatever else people do with their own consent and their own affairs is out of my jurisdiction.

Where do you guys draw the line?

[ArcticFox]

It's not about controlling people. It's about wanting to hire only people who respect Biblical teachings and who live consistently with those teachings.

It's not like they're going out and trying to force people to live a different way, only choosing whom they associate with.

Like it or dislike it, it is their right.

[ArchAngel]

Their interpretations of biblical teachings. Minor point, but it's important to distinguish because otherwise a person can start thinking they talk for god.
And I'm not disputing legalities at this point. Whether or not they have the right to do it does not mean it's right or wrong. I'm sure we're all familiar with this distinction.

How is it not control? It's literally their rules. Even with the association view of things, they are trying to control who they associate with.
If one of their employees is caught having sex with their boyfriend or girlfriend, what would that mean for them?

I'm not sure how you'd feel about an organization required their employees to not be Christian, because they want to control who they associate with, but I'd find it reprehensible and close-minded.
The thinking can be extended to any national level, and I have heard similar things said. I recall someone telling atheists to that if they don't like that it's a christian nation, we should leave. If the majority vote the a required religion for the country, is it not about association with ______ principles and people who don't like it don't have to stay?
I understand my edit of the last post came after you made your post, but where would you draw the line in this sort of thing?

[N1ghtBreak3r]

Wow. I booted this thread up on my phone to see Bruce's post about them reversing. Now to catch up...


**edit:
if a privately owned and funded company wants to run it on their own values and by their own selected standards isn't that well within their right? I grow weary of it being a one way street where Christians or other religious people are trying to "push" their values on others when isn't it that same exact thing the LGBT community is doing? Why should a Christian organization be castigated for running things according to their beliefs just because it contradicts someone else's lifestyle?

In reality, nobody is forcing someone to live a certain way. The employee know the expectation and if he disagrees he is welcome to pursue another job elsewhere if he can't reconcile the two.

I do think World Vision needs to be courageous and steadfast in whatever decision they end up making. Right now they are looking like an organization that isn't sure of what they believe in.