Christ Centered Gamer

ArcticFox wrote:

ChickenSoup wrote: Let's flip this around for a moment to illustrate why Arch and I take the position that it's exclusionary.

(I phrase this as a hypothetical because it does appear that WV was primarily covering their butts rather than attempting to "unify Christians," but...) how about this: what if WV had a differing opinion on what constitutes Biblical marriage? They're free to accept whomever they see fit just as much as gays are free to "choose another employer." Yet, half the evangelical population metaphorically (and/or literally) crapped themselves at the idea that THE GAYS ARE BARGING INTO OUR LIVES AND SHOVING THEIR BELIEFS DOWN OUR THROATS... AGAIN.

I'm... I'm sorry some Christians had a different opinion? Who was doing the shoving, again?

Not sure I understand what you mean here... As I see it, these people have been conducting their affairs in this way for years and years and nobody said "boo" about it. Now suddenly there's this hot button political cause and it's WV who's doing the shoving? That doesn't make sense to me.

No, I'm saying that Christians complain about how we're being forced to accept a lifestyle we don't agree with, because we're entitled to our rights. Yet, when a Christian organization decides "hey, gay people can also help the poor," everyone flips out and pressures them into changing. Who's doing the shoving, really?

This comes across to me as another opportunity to politicize and amplify the incompatibility between modern lifestyles and traditional Christian mores, and to vilify the Christians being discussed. (I'm not accusing you guys of doing this, I'm talking about the talking heads in the media.) It isn't like WV went out and started picking fights with people who don't live their way. It's not like they were using the media to attack and shame people who don't live according to Biblical teachings. They were just doing their thing, forcing nobody, hurting nobody, until they made the mistake of drawing attention to themselves by coming out with the initial statement that they were relaxing their hiring criteria. When they reversed it, all they were doing was going back to business as usual only now people are ready to burn them at the stake, and you guys are in here judging them for it.

At least, that's the way it comes across. I don't mean any offense, just telling you how it looks from here.

Noooo no, you've got it reversed. I'm expressing frustrations with Christians who flipped out when they started allowing gays to work, NOT with WV for reversing its decision (although that bugs me too).

I still love you, too. In a heterosexual sort of way.
Unless, of course if...

ArcticFox wrote:I don't know whether it should or not, but the reality is that it does. Maybe it's not fair, but there it is.

It does, and it has even more in the past, but when Jesus dined with tax collectors, prostitutes, and other sorts of sinners, should that even matter?

ArcticFox wrote:

ArchAngel wrote:Also, is there a limit to the extent the controls they wish to place? Unless I missed it, you never mentioned any sort of justification needed for rules made about an employee's personal life. Is none needed, and any organization can set whatever criteria they wish without crossing any ethical lines?

Well, we already agree that they can when rights were mentioned earlier, so I'm not sure what you're asking here.

Well, I asked if any organization can set whatever criteria they wish without crossing any ethical lines?

ArcticFox wrote:They were just doing their thing, forcing nobody, hurting nobody, until they made the mistake of drawing attention to themselves by coming out with the initial statement that they were relaxing their hiring criteria. When they reversed it, all they were doing was going back to business as usual only now people are ready to burn them at the stake, and you guys are in here judging them for it.

My only judgement on their reversal is of spinelessness or lack of principle. If their original decision was by conviction, they turned tail pretty fast. If not, seems like the issue is more about public relations rather than ethics.
Other than that, it simply brought to light what was before unknown to me. Frankly, for me, WorldVision is simple an example for the concepts under discussion.

ChickenSoup wrote: No, I'm saying that Christians complain about how we're being forced to accept a lifestyle we don't agree with, because we're entitled to our rights. Yet, when a Christian organization decides "hey, gay people can also help the poor," everyone flips out and pressures them into changing. Who's doing the shoving, really?

Ok, so before I answer I just want to make sure I'm reading you right. (It's Saturday morning and my brain is off for the weekend )Are you saying it's the Christian community pushing WV into changing back?

ChickenSoup wrote: Noooo no, you've got it reversed. I'm expressing frustrations with Christians who flipped out when they started allowing gays to work, NOT with WV for reversing its decision (although that bugs me too).

Ok I gotcha.

I guess the reason I'm sympathetic toward that mentality is this: We're seeing a lot of examples of Christians being bullied in court to participate in things they'd rather not, homosexual marriage and healthcare costs for morally objectionable procedures being the two big ones. So any time a Christian organization makes concessions on its moral position, it's going to be seen as part of the overall pattern. In this case WV's initial decision was not because of any external pressure that we're aware of, but people will still tend to see it in that light.

ArchAngel wrote:I still love you, too. In a heterosexual sort of way.
Unless, of course if...

Oh, why can't I quit you...

ArchAngel wrote: It does, and it has even more in the past, but when Jesus dined with tax collectors, prostitutes, and other sorts of sinners, should that even matter?

Jesus associated with society's "undesirables" to make a point about showing humility and love. This wasn't an effort to show how tolerant He was of sinful lifestyles, but rather as a way to bring sinners into the fold. He expected sinners to change their ways before they could follow Him. The Pharisees would not have reached out to these people, but Jesus did. That didn't mean He accommodated their ways.

ArchAngel wrote:Well, I asked if any organization can set whatever criteria they wish without crossing any ethical lines?

I think I know where our worldviews differ. In my point of view, (and I admit this is an ideal circumstance), it's rarely unethical to exercise a right. It's why I have a harder time separating this discussion from an issue of rights than you do. If WV has the right to hire who they want, then that's the end of it. If their hiring practices are objectionable then people are free to avoid them. If the situation becomes extreme enough, they will either be forced by circumstances to change or collapse.

ArchAngel wrote:My only judgement on their reversal is of spinelessness or lack of principle. If their original decision was by conviction, they turned tail pretty fast. If not, seems like the issue is more about public relations rather than ethics.

Agreed.

ArchAngel wrote: Other than that, it simply brought to light what was before unknown to me. Frankly, for me, WorldVision is simple an example for the concepts under discussion.

Fair enough, but just beware of seeming like a weekend crusader

At the risk of careening off the rails and into offtopic zone, this is the final response I was given by a pastor I know in regards to my argument with him:

"read the same text and come to different conclusions" ...if you're referring to the Biblical text, then it's only been in the last 40-50 years that ANYONE in the church has even tried to interpret the text differently, and then only because of outside social pressure. The statement "descend into the pit" was to be somewhat metaphorical, of course, but at the same time, the reversal decision was in part due to the fear of financial donation collapse from those who support them the most. It would've ruined them as an organization, and they knew it. Anyone\any nation that makes a decision to violate God's Word and attempt to counter His wisdom is headed for ultimate failure, at least in the eyes of God. And I'll take the Biblical conclusions of the last several millennia over the latest faddish conclusion any day. And you're probably right...the last four years of academia have likely made a difference in your thinking. But as we both know, that particular culture is anything but orthodox in their Biblical views. In the meantime, I continue to pray for you my friend.

If he could be any more closed-minded or condescending, I probably would have just hit him.

ArcticFox wrote:Jesus associated with society's "undesirables" to make a point about showing humility and love. This wasn't an effort to show how tolerant He was of sinful lifestyles, but rather as a way to bring sinners into the fold. He expected sinners to change their ways before they could follow Him. The Pharisees would not have reached out to these people, but Jesus did. That didn't mean He accommodated their ways.

I'm not sure if we know enough to say if he expected change before he associated with them. For them to follow, probably, but it doesn't seem to be the primary focus. From the text, it seems that doing good rather than avoiding sin, was the primary focus. On a literary perspective of the gospels, this is even more emphasized as Jesus is foiled by the Pharisees, the proponents of purity.

Now, I'm fairly certain WorldVision isn't denying relief to people they find living sinful lifestyles, so that's, at least, good. In my criticism, I feel I should at least acknowledge their basic human decency.

ArcticFox wrote:I think I know where our worldviews differ. In my point of view, (and I admit this is an ideal circumstance), it's rarely unethical to exercise a right. It's why I have a harder time separating this discussion from an issue of rights than you do. If WV has the right to hire who they want, then that's the end of it. If their hiring practices are objectionable then people are free to avoid them. If the situation becomes extreme enough, they will either be forced by circumstances to change or collapse.

I'm not sure if I agree with that, but you are the expert on yourself, so if I might ask a couple questions to clarify for me.
I assumed that these were considered to be within one's rights, but I thought you'd find them immoral:

• Homosexual sex
• Affairs
• Premarital Sex
• Orgies
• Lying
• Flipping off homeless people
• Flipping off people
• Acting like homeless people are not people
• Blaspheming God
• Being one of those really hostile youtube atheists, particularly the commenters
• Working on sabbath
• Taking the lord's name in vain
• Hating people
• Hating God
• Loving Sin
• Being a general ****
• Cursing
• Drive-by farting into a stroller
• Not tithing (sketchy on this one, but from what I know of LDS, this one is a little more serious that with protestants, although I have been disappointed by the emphasis churches have placed on this)

So on. There a number of these I don't find immoral, and being that you draw a number of morality claims from your religion, I'd imagine that you'd find more immoral acts within rights.
All in all, my case is that for me as well as for you, there is a distinction between rights and ethics and that the boundary between the two is incredibly important. This is more than derailing our current derailing of the thread, though.

ArcticFox wrote:Fair enough, but just beware of seeming like a weekend crusader

Nah, you're the resident Pally here! I used to be, but I fell out with the order, lost my powers, and now I just wander the threads as a Neutral Good Fighter.

In a less facetious, D&D talk, not to imply that D&D is facetious, I realize that nothing I say here is going to change anything for WorldVision, but I think the subject is worth talking about. I don't think people think enough about the basis of rights and morality and how they interact.

ChickenSoup wrote:If he could be any more closed-minded or condescending, I probably would have just hit him.

It's always comforting to see that such close-minded condescension can be laced with enough niceties that the person can convince themselves that they are loving.

All in all, I find the stubbornness and refusal to consider alternative ideas to be altogether tiresome. Old men, it seems in my observational bias, to be the worst offenders of this, as if their willful ignorance is a merit of age.
I hope I don't end up like that.

There's a possibility I'm dealing with some residual bitterness towards unmentioned persons of familial or platonic acquaintance.

ArchAngel wrote:I'm not sure if we know enough to say if he expected change before he associated with them. For them to follow, probably, but it doesn't seem to be the primary focus. From the text, it seems that doing good rather than avoiding sin, was the primary focus. On a literary perspective of the gospels, this is even more emphasized as Jesus is foiled by the Pharisees, the proponents of purity.

"She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."
-John 8:11

"But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick."
-Matthew 9:12

Yes, being in sin was a problem that He was there to help people overcome. Just doing good things is only part of the solution.

ArchAngel wrote:I'm not sure if I agree with that, but you are the expert on yourself, so if I might ask a couple questions to clarify for me.
I assumed that these were considered to be within one's rights, but I thought you'd find them immoral:
<snip for brevity>
All in all, my case is that for me as well as for you, there is a distinction between rights and ethics and that the boundary between the two is incredibly important. This is more than derailing our current derailing of the thread, though.

My friend, ethics and morality are two different things, are they not? I said ethics and rights usually go together. Morality is another thing entirely.

ArchAngel wrote: Nah, you're the resident Pally here! I used to be, but I fell out with the order, lost my powers, and now I just wander the threads as a Neutral Good Fighter.

In a less facetious, D&D talk, not to imply that D&D is facetious, I realize that nothing I say here is going to change anything for WorldVision, but I think the subject is worth talking about. I don't think people think enough about the basis of rights and morality and how they interact.

I agree with that. Perhaps a worthy topic for a thread.

ArcticFox wrote:My friend, ethics and morality are two different things, are they not? I said ethics and rights usually go together. Morality is another thing entirely.

Kind of?
Not in that way. Ethics are the system on which we derive our morality. It's all still a question of right and wrong.

This would seem to be another area where we come from two very different perspectives. For me, ethics is a subset of morality which deals with honesty and how we treat other people. A thing which is ethical is (ideally) always moral, but a thing that is moral isn't necessarily a question of ethics.

For example: Fornication is an action I would regard as immoral, but not unethical. Sleeping with someone else's wife is both immoral AND unethical.

I don't think that's the actual definition of ethics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethic" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.google.com/search?q=definition:+ethics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hence, the way I expressed it...

"For me, ethics is a subset of..."

Because the way the term is commonly used in our culture, we don't really apply it to questions that are morally relative. The wiki article you linked to mentions this at the beginning "... often addressing disputes of moral diversity." In theory, an ethical question is something that most people would agree on, while morality is much more relative to culture, beliefs and upbringing. To expand on what I said above, we don't really look at things like fornicating, homosexuality, working on Sunday as being questions of ethics, even though those items are highly immoral for some while perfectly moral to others.

The Westboro people believe that hatred is perfectly moral when properly directed, while the majority of Christians believe that hatred is never justified. That's a moral question. Ethics don't come into it until we start talking about the way people manifest that hatred. Is it unethical for two like-minded people to sit and pat each other on the back about hating homosexuals? I guess not, but it would be considered highly unethical for these same two people to try and force that view on others, or to picket funerals, etc.

So I can see where someone may look at morality and ethics and see them as the same thing, but I don't. I see a subtle but important difference.

I hadn't heard of Worldvision until I read the article on a biblical discernment website about their decision. I'm not one to say whether or not they changed their view because of all of the people who withdrew their support or if it's because of the people who told them they were departing from biblical truth. I'm going towards the latter if I had to make a choice. But I'm also leaning towards the former. Only God knows their hearts. But I am being cautious about it all because I believe that the Great Falling Away as told by Paul is happening right now.