Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

World Vision apostasy, or: never, ever, give your money to Christian organizations...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
    Considering the wide variety of religious beliefs concerning what is and is not permissible, to the point where each person essentially founds his or her own religion, it makes no sense to take action based on such a subjective measure. That's because ideas that a certain behavior is harmful only in the divine sense are interchangeable when it comes to reputability. If you want a religious prohibition to be taken seriously, you must in turn take all religious prohibitions seriously, otherwise your concern boils down to the idea that everyone should behave how you want them to because you know better than everyone else. That special knowledge comes from whim alone.
    Would this include prohibitions from religions other than our own?

    I suppose I'm a little confused at your response.
    I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by seasanctuary View Post
      That's not a definition of "love" that I recognize. The backlash against World Vision's first decision is the sort of thing that makes me think Christianity is about the worship of hatred. The article I linked--and World Vision itself--are the sort of things that keep me from having a simplistically negative view.
      Are you done building that pile of burning straw yet, sea?
      "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
      GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
        Would this include prohibitions from religions other than our own?

        I suppose I'm a little confused at your response.
        They are just as well supported. The alternative forces one to make oneself into their own god.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by seer
          Sea, why do you keep assuming that because we object to the behavior that we must therefore hate the person? There are persons that I dearly love but I still can object to some of their behaviors. As a matter of fact, the more you love someone the more you tend to hate the behaviors that are destroying them.
          While I can't speak for seasanctuary, I do want to interject here. Suppose we live in a bizarro society. You meet a woman, and the two of you discover that you both have similar goals and dreams and interests, are fond of each other's personalities, feel truly alive when communicating with each other and being in each other's company, and possibly find each other attractive. You love her so much, and she reciprocates this love fully, that you find yourself motivated to spend the rest of your life with her.

          However, you and the woman are both extreme minorities in this bizarro society--over 90% of the men do not and cannot experience with women what you experience. Instead, they can only experience that with other men, and the same goes for the women. Consequently, because those men and women constitute the vast majority, they hold all the political and cultural power. Their orientations and beliefs and mindsets are seen as the norm, the objective standard, the default. This wouldn't necessarily be a problem by itself, but unfortunately, the people won't leave you and your loved one alone. You two simply want to support each other and be constant fixtures in each other's lives, but when you ask for something as simple and innocuous as a celebratory cake, the society fights for legislation that would allow bakers to deny that service to you. When a charity says to you "Of course you can help us serve the poor and needy!," the society protests by dropping the children they'd promised to sponsor, returning only when the charity changes its mind and prohibits you from helping. In other words, they essentially used impoverished children as a threat to ensure that you wouldn't be allowed to serve.

          When you angrily and rightfully demand an explanation for this discrimination, the people reply "It's because our deity says you're sinful." You simply want to be with the person you love, but they whenever they think of your relationship, they tend to automatically and primarily focus on what you two might sexually do together. Your aforementioned goals, dreams, interests, personalities (aka, the aspects of our internal lives that make us human) are all ignored. You're never thought of as just a banker or jogger or husband, but rather as "that heterosexual banker" and "that heterosexual jogger" and "that heterosexual husband." A wonderfully complex and multi-faceted person such as yourself is identified solely by a single characteristic. Whenever you go out in public and people find out that you're straight, they always think of you first and foremost as a fundamentally flawed individual who engages in immoral behavior. (Never mind that you, like most people, are not engaging in sexual behavior 24/7.) And when people try to argue on your behalf that you shouldn't be discriminated against, the rest of society responds by bringing up thieves and rapists and alcoholics as a comparison to you. Even though you worship the deity that the rest of society claims to worship, and even though you're faithful to your loved one and treat people with kindness, respect, compassion, concern for justice, etc, people won't stop telling you that your loving, stable relationship that involves far more than sex is sinful, and that you're engaging in deviant behavior (even when you often aren't) and harming others. Meanwhile, another man comes along and is just like you, with one exception--he, like the vast majority of society, is homosexual. The society unanimously supports his relationship, views him as a person who's more than his sexual orientation, and allows him to serve and be served in the bakeries, charities and churches that were forbidden to you.

          Finally, after all that, the people of that society pat you on the head and tell you "We don't hate you, we just hate your behavior."

          Does this possibly make things more clear?

          (ETA: To be clear, I don't believe that all or even most such people are truly hateful. But it's not that hard to see why that perception exists. And at the very least, it is hard to see how those sorts of responses and reactions could constitute genuine love.)
          Last edited by fm93; 03-29-2014, 01:28 AM.
          Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

          I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by squarepeg
            You meet a woman, and the two of you discover that you both have similar goals and dreams and interests, are fond of each other's personalities, feel truly alive when communicating with each other and being in each other's company, and possibly find each other attractive.
            That's like precisely the opposite direction from which most actual human relationships progress. And I'm going to forthrightly dismiss the rest of your sociological thought experiment out of hand because ABSOLUTELY NONE OF IT TOOK INTO ACCOUNT HOW BABIES ARE MADE, RAISED AND CARED FOR.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
              Considering the wide variety of religious beliefs concerning what is and is not permissible, to the point where each person essentially founds his or her own religion, it makes no sense to take action based on such a subjective measure.
              As a Christian, I don't really give a hoot about other religions. The Torah and the New Testament condemn homosexual activity, calling it sinful, so bringing up other religions when we are discussing a Christian belief is a non sequitir.

              That's because ideas that a certain behavior is harmful only in the divine sense are interchangeable when it comes to reputability.
              Again, so what? Were I to give two flying flips about other ideas that are contradictory to historical Christian practice, then maybe I'd discuss it with you in apologetics.

              If you want a religious prohibition to be taken seriously, you must in turn take all religious prohibitions seriously, otherwise your concern boils down to the idea that everyone should behave how you want them to because you know better than everyone else. That special knowledge comes from whim alone.
              I don't care whether a nonbeliever takes my religious prohibitions seriously. The fact remains that my religion does prohibit it, and any activities I engage in that reinforce that prohibition are consistent with my overall worldview. Same with World Vision's decision to reverse their decision when they were called on it contradicting their professed worldview.
              That's what
              - She

              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
              Stephen R. Donaldson

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by square_peg View Post
                While I can't speak for seasanctuary, I do want to interject here. Suppose we live in a bizarro society. You meet a woman, and the two of you discover that you both have similar goals and dreams and interests, are fond of each other's personalities, feel truly alive when communicating with each other and being in each other's company, and possibly find each other attractive. You love her so much, and she reciprocates this love fully, that you find yourself motivated to spend the rest of your life with her.
                What would any of this have to do with anyone else? Why should anyone in the society care about what you do in your personal life, or why should you share it with them?

                However, you and the woman are both extreme minorities in this bizarro society--over 90% of the men do not and cannot experience with women what you experience.
                How can someone not be capable of these things with another person of the same sex?

                1) you both have similar goals and dreams and interests,
                2) are fond of each other's personalities,
                3) feel truly alive when communicating with each other and being in each other's company
                4) You love her so much, and she reciprocates this love fully, that you find yourself motivated to spend the rest of your life with her

                I am a married male, and I have all of these things with my best friend, Rob. We've been best friends for 20 years, and I do not plan on ever not being his best friend.

                Instead, they can only experience that with other men, and the same goes for the women. Consequently, because those men and women constitute the vast majority, they hold all the political and cultural power. Their orientations and beliefs and mindsets are seen as the norm, the objective standard, the default. This wouldn't necessarily be a problem by itself, but unfortunately, the people won't leave you and your loved one alone.
                Alarm bells sounding!! Using the extreme minority response as the norm is fallacious.

                You two simply want to support each other and be constant fixtures in each other's lives, but when you ask for something as simple and innocuous as a celebratory cake, the society fights for legislation that would allow bakers to deny that service to you.
                Then I go to someone who is more aligned with my ideas for the cake. Why would I go to someone for service who doesn't want to serve me? Am I trying to exert my own power over them that they MUST be my servant against their will?

                When a charity says to you "Of course you can help us serve the poor and needy!," the society protests by dropping the children they'd promised to sponsor, returning only when the charity changes its mind and prohibits you from helping.
                If you knew in advance that the charity did not align with your interests, why not seek to serve at another one that does? Again, is this a power play to force them to validate publically your choice to engage in behavior contrary to the cultural norm?

                In other words, they essentially used impoverished children as a threat to ensure that you wouldn't be allowed to serve.
                This is an argument from outrage. When people align themselves with others, it is usually because they share similar values. When one party abandons that common value, the other has every right to withdraw, and to let the first know why. If the first sees it as a threat, then the first is displaying a victim's mentality.

                When you angrily and rightfully demand an explanation for this discrimination, the people reply "It's because our deity says you're sinful."
                Sigh. Gonna break this down because the sheer volume of fallacy is dizzying...

                If the company is founded on the deity's principles, would you want them to reject those principles just for your own power play? That sounds an awful lot like bullying.

                You simply want to be with the person you love, but they whenever they think of your relationship, they tend to automatically and primarily focus on what you two might sexually do together.
                That's life. When people see a geek with a knockout, they automatically and primarily focus on terms like "gold digger". When you identify yourself primarily by your sexuality, it is going to be the focus of discussion.

                Your aforementioned goals, dreams, interests, personalities (aka, the aspects of our internal lives that make us human) are all ignored.
                No they aren't. Unless you make your sexuality an issue.

                You're never thought of as just a banker or jogger or husband, but rather as "that heterosexual banker" and "that heterosexual jogger" and "that heterosexual husband."
                From what I can see these days, it is the homosexual who is making a public spectacle of their sexuality, including press conferences to announce it.

                A wonderfully complex and multi-faceted person such as yourself is identified solely by a single characteristic. Whenever you go out in public and people find out that you're straight, they always think of you first and foremost as a fundamentally flawed individual who engages in immoral behavior. (Never mind that you, like most people, are not engaging in sexual behavior 24/7.)
                It is the militant that typically make it an issue. And again, if the prevailing deity says it is sinful, then society will continue to see you as a sinful individual. If it means so much to you to be accepted by a society without being a bully about it, then you may choose to not engage with another in an act that society sees as sinful. But choosing to engage in sinful behavior will result in you being considered a sinful person, regardless of if you are engaging in that behavior 24/7.

                And when people try to argue on your behalf that you shouldn't be discriminated against, the rest of society responds by bringing up thieves and rapists and alcoholics as a comparison to you.
                And if the prevailing deity equates them, then why is it improper? Would you force the people to reject the prevailing deity's standards?

                Even though you worship the deity that the rest of society claims to worship,
                Yet you thumb your nose at that deity's standard... doesn't sound like you worship them so much as use them as a convenience...

                and even though you're faithful to your loved one and treat people with kindness, respect, compassion, concern for justice, etc,
                Yet you thumb your nose at that deity's standard...

                people won't stop telling you that your loving, stable relationship that involves far more than sex is sinful,
                By the standard decreed by that deity.

                and that you're engaging in deviant behavior (even when you often aren't) and harming others.
                "even when you often aren't" still means that you are at times, and that you have no intention of stopping it.


                Meanwhile, another man comes along and is just like you, with one exception--he, like the vast majority of society, is homosexual. The society unanimously supports his relationship, views him as a person who's more than his sexual orientation, and allows him to serve and be served in the bakeries, charities and churches that were forbidden to you.
                Where was anyone denied access to the bakery as an individual client? Charities are a different animal, as they are typically ideology based. And what church turned away an individual person? Now, if you are referring to specific services offered by those places, then we can discuss that specifically.

                Finally, after all that, the people of that society pat you on the head and tell you "We don't hate you, we just hate your behavior."
                Is it their fault that you identify yourself by that behavior?

                Does this possibly make things more clear?
                It makes it obvious that you don't get what our objection really is, nor why we hold to it.

                (ETA: To be clear, I don't believe that all or even most such people are truly hateful. But it's not that hard to see why that perception exists. And at the very least, it is hard to see how those sorts of responses and reactions could constitute genuine love.)
                Is it genuine love to allow your teenager to do drugs? Is it genuine love to let your teenager engage in behavior that you see as destructive? Is it genuine love to not discipline your children when they deviate from your standards? Is it genuine love to even have standards?
                That's what
                - She

                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                Stephen R. Donaldson

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  As a Christian, I don't really give a hoot about other religions. The Torah and the New Testament condemn homosexual activity, calling it sinful, so bringing up other religions when we are discussing a Christian belief is a non sequitir.

                  Again, so what? Were I to give two flying flips about other ideas that are contradictory to historical Christian practice, then maybe I'd discuss it with you in apologetics.

                  I don't care whether a nonbeliever takes my religious prohibitions seriously. The fact remains that my religion does prohibit it, and any activities I engage in that reinforce that prohibition are consistent with my overall worldview. Same with World Vision's decision to reverse their decision when they were called on it contradicting their professed worldview.
                  The difference between a good religion and a bad religion is imposition. Everyone except for you is a nonbeliever, because you alone decides what your religion demands. Everyone follows their own religion. You are saying that because your religion prohibits something, everyone else within an arbitrary category* must believe in it. Does a dictatorship seem like a good idea to you?

                  *You say Christianity, but what that entails is decided by you.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                    The difference between a good religion and a bad religion is imposition. Everyone except for you is a nonbeliever, because you alone decides what your religion demands. Everyone follows their own religion. You are saying that because your religion prohibits something, everyone else within an arbitrary category* must believe in it. Does a dictatorship seem like a good idea to you?

                    *You say Christianity, but what that entails is decided by you.
                    Yeah, because I'm the only Christian or Jew in history that has ever said that homosexual behavior is sinful...

                    You can't be THAT stupid, can you?
                    That's what
                    - She

                    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                    Stephen R. Donaldson

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      Yeah, because I'm the only Christian or Jew in history that has ever said that homosexual behavior is sinful...

                      You can't be THAT stupid, can you?
                      If a behavior has no serious negative effect outside of violating a divine edict in your particular world view, it is immoral to prohibit others from that behavior when you are in a position of power. You keep saying things like "as a Christian", "Christian belief", and "Christian practice". These things don't actually exist when it comes to behavioral tenets. You, and others like you, are creating arbitrary social divisions. What you are really saying is "as a Bill the Catian", "Bill the Catian belief", and "Bill the Catian practice". The real divisions are categorical or individual.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                        If a behavior has no serious negative effect outside of violating a divine edict in your particular world view, it is immoral to prohibit others from that behavior when you are in a position of power. You keep saying things like "as a Christian", "Christian belief", and "Christian practice". These things don't actually exist when it comes to behavioral tenets. You, and others like you, are creating arbitrary social divisions. What you are really saying is "as a Bill the Catian", "Bill the Catian belief", and "Bill the Catian practice". The real divisions are categorical or individual.
                        First Psychic, these prohibitions against certain sexual behaviors are not arbitrary but have been ingrained in western civilization for a millennia or more. Second, as Christians we are not limited to your narrow view of harm. Third, if there is no goal or teleology for human sexuality then there is no sexual behavior that couldn't be justified if done right - like bestiality.
                        Last edited by seer; 03-31-2014, 07:43 AM.
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                          If a behavior has no serious negative effect outside of violating a divine edict in your particular world view, it is immoral to prohibit others from that behavior when you are in a position of power.
                          Where have I suggested we prohibit their behavior?

                          You keep saying things like "as a Christian", "Christian belief", and "Christian practice". These things don't actually exist when it comes to behavioral tenets.
                          If a Christian has a consistent worldview, there is no separating the two.

                          You, and others like you, are creating arbitrary social divisions.
                          They are not arbitrary to us. They are divinely commanded.

                          What you are really saying is "as a Bill the Catian", "Bill the Catian belief", and "Bill the Catian practice". The real divisions are categorical or individual.
                          Not even close. Individuals do not make the rules when they serve someone else in a higher position of authority. The division comes from the edicts of the highest authority on what is considered acceptable practice and what is considered not acceptable.
                          That's what
                          - She

                          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                          Stephen R. Donaldson

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                            They are not arbitrary to us. They are divinely commanded.
                            It's an arbitrary divine command if there isn't a reason for it besides the divine command.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by seasanctuary View Post
                              It's an arbitrary divine command if there isn't a reason for it besides the divine command.
                              What? If there is a God given goal or teleology for human sexuality then the command is not arbitrary.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by seasanctuary View Post
                                It's an arbitrary divine command if there isn't a reason for it besides the divine command.
                                Well, how do you know there's no reason (besides the command itself)?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 08:05 PM
                                8 responses
                                43 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 04:42 PM
                                7 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, 09-25-2021, 02:40 PM
                                24 responses
                                127 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by NorrinRadd, 09-25-2021, 01:16 PM
                                28 responses
                                204 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, 09-25-2021, 11:32 AM
                                24 responses
                                122 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Working...
                                X