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.)
Worldvision makes changes...
Forum rules
1) This is a Christian site, respect our beliefs and we will respect yours.
2) This is a family friendly site, no swearing or posting offensive links, pictures, or signatures.
3) Please be respectful of others.
4) Trolls are not welcome and will be dealt with accordingly.
5) No racial comments, jokes or images
6) If you see a dead thread over 6 months old, let it rest in peace
7) No Duplicate posts
1) This is a Christian site, respect our beliefs and we will respect yours.
2) This is a family friendly site, no swearing or posting offensive links, pictures, or signatures.
3) Please be respectful of others.
4) Trolls are not welcome and will be dealt with accordingly.
5) No racial comments, jokes or images
6) If you see a dead thread over 6 months old, let it rest in peace
7) No Duplicate posts
-
Bruce_Campbell
- Master Gamer
- Posts: 572
- Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:00 am
- Contact:
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.)
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.)
A vegan atheist walks into a bar. Bartender says "Hey, are you a vegan atheist? Just kidding, you've mentioned it like eight times already."
-
ChickenSoup
- CCGR addict
- Posts: 3291
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
- Are you human?: Yes!
- Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne
- Contact:
yusssssssssBruce_Campbell wrote: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.)
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested
-
ArcticFox
- CCGR addict
- Posts: 3506
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
- Are you human?: Yes!
- Contact:
*ahem*Deepfreeze32 wrote: he supports the Tea Party.
There is nothing wrong with supporting the Tea Party.
But yeah the rest of that stuff is pretty extreme.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young
"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
—Brigham Young
"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
-
N1ghtBreak3r
- Senior Member
- Posts: 387
- Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 7:52 pm
- Are you human?: Yes!
- Contact:
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.
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
- CCGR addict
- Posts: 3539
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
-
ArcticFox
- CCGR addict
- Posts: 3506
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
- Are you human?: Yes!
- Contact:
A sin is a willful act of disobedience against God.ArchAngel wrote: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.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young
"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
—Brigham Young
"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
-
N1ghtBreak3r
- Senior Member
- Posts: 387
- Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 7:52 pm
- Are you human?: Yes!
- Contact:
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
- CCGR addict
- Posts: 3506
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
- Are you human?: Yes!
- Contact:
In a way. Of course, nothing's quite so simple.ArchAngel wrote:Than those who don't know God are sinless.
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.N1ghtBreak3r wrote: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.
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.)
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young
"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
—Brigham Young
"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
-
Bruce_Campbell
- Master Gamer
- Posts: 572
- Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:00 am
- Contact:
Well, it looks like they reversed their decision.
Normally this kinda thing would just tick me off, but today I'm just sad.
Normally this kinda thing would just tick me off, but today I'm just sad.
A vegan atheist walks into a bar. Bartender says "Hey, are you a vegan atheist? Just kidding, you've mentioned it like eight times already."
-
ccgr
- Site Admin
- Posts: 39180
- Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 12:00 am
- Are you human?: Yes!
- Location: IL
- Contact:
Alrighty then, I wonder how many people dropped their financial commitments over this to make them reverse their decision.
-
ArchAngel
- CCGR addict
- Posts: 3539
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
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?
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?
Last edited by ArchAngel on Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
ArcticFox
- CCGR addict
- Posts: 3506
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
- Are you human?: Yes!
- Contact:
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.
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.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young
"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
—Brigham Young
"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
-
ArchAngel
- CCGR addict
- Posts: 3539
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
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?
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
- Senior Member
- Posts: 387
- Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 7:52 pm
- Are you human?: Yes!
- Contact:
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.
**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.