World Vision reverses course and will not support homosexual marriage

they tried to do the right thing, but someone made them reconsider, how sad for them...

 

You can marry your dog if you like. Just no tax breaks and governmental entitlements to go along with it. The government always dictates who does and does not get tax breaks and governmental entitlements

 

I like World Vision. I've been a sponsor through them for years now. I wasn't going to change that based on their first decision, but I am glad they decided to stick to their beliefs in the matter.

 

We hadnt yet invented "homosexuality" in biblical times.

 

"too stupid", not "to stupid".

......

 

I didn't realize abstinence was a written requirement in their policy.
When I saw the announcement that they chose to accept gays it was rather "ho hum". Christian organizations do it all the time, and I don't know any church that wouldn't invite them.

But, while there is nothing wrong with Christian organizations welcoming homosexuals to help, not lead, I do understand the change in mind... based on policy.

 

As I've told a hundred other PF members like you.....

Before making claims of what the Bible does, or does not, say..... at least read it to see if your even close.
Because you're not.


Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Romans 1:26-28
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

1 Timothy 1:10
The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

1 Corinthians 7:2
But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

Mark 10:6-9
But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Romans 1:27
And the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

 

Mocking, name calling, insulting.... it's all typical of someone trying to convince himself that there is no God.

Also, typical of the left when shouting down people who simply don't agree with them.

 

I've read the bible more than most Christians have. I studied it in detail, which is why I am no longer a Christian. Maybe you should read my last post more clearly. I stated accurately that the book of Leviticus is a book of laws the Hebrews followed before Christ was in the picture and it is also a group of laws I have never seen Christians follow themselves. They expect homosexuals to follow Levitical Law all while eating shell fish and wearing clothes of mixed fabric. Maybe you should reread the book of Leviticus.
1 Corinthians 7:2 and Mark 10:6-9 says nothing about homosexuality, so I don't know why you put that one in your small list of references to homosexuality.
Romans 1:27 isn't talking about all homosexuals. It is a letter written to the Roman church addressing their use of sexuality in their worship. Read the full chapter and not just this one fragment to put it into context.

As for the remaining passages, I suggest you get a Strong's Concordance and study the original translations on those passages. The words homosexual was added in recent history replacing words that were pertaining to sexual addiction of both heterosexuals and homosexuals and the practice of keeping prostitutes in the temple. Please, don't take my word for it, do the research for yourself. Most people don't really want to research the bible, they just want to pick out bits and pieces they like and pretend they understand the whole bible.

 

the part I enlarged is all that need be said. Since you have decided to not be Christian then that is fine for you. It does not mean that you can or should dictate your lack of belief upon those who follow Christian beliefs. I am sorry if homosexual sex is important to you. It is not to Christians and we follow our teachings.

We are free to follow our beliefs as are you.

 

Yes, he does.

In the Old Covenant you can read that God called homosexuals as "dogs". That a prostitute or a "dog" (male prostitute) can't bring offerings to God from their inmoral way of income.

In the New Testament, in the book of Revelation, Jesus tells John that no adulterers, fornicators, "dogs" (homosexuals) etc, will enter to the new city.

From beginning to end in the bible, homosexuality has been considered an abomination, and nothing will change that...

 

I'm not arguing OT law, or interested in your backpedaling, reinterpretations or justification attempts.

You said: "there is nothing in the bible that states being a homosexual is wrong or that homosexual marriage is wrong".

All I did was show you how wrong you are.

 

The issue which I won't allow them to drag me into which seems to be the intent, is they are trying to justify their lack of faith and to demonize us for having faith and adhering to Christian values.

The Bible states that homosexual sex is wrong. If you run a Christian organization, then homosexual sex is wrong. With that said, you can't support homosexual marriage. It's the homosexual sex which is wrong, the action. The individuals still have souls yet are committing sin by engaging in homosexual sex.

 

Frankly, I didn't dictate my lack of belief upon Christians. I was speaking of biblical facts. It's also clear to me that the radical Christians find homosexuality a very important subject. They see it as a threat to their families and they preach hate towards homosexuals. If it wasn't all that important to these radical Christians, they wouldn't spend so much time and money trying to pray the gay away, cure the gay, and legislate anti gay laws. Homosexual sex isn't important to me. Treating my fellow man with compassion and kindness and making sure we all, as Americans, have equal rights is very important to me. I could care less what people do in their bedrooms.

 

Where in the bible does it claim homosexuals are dogs? Being homosexual and being a prostitute are two VERY different things. So, your analogy that dogs means homosexuals is fallible. No where in Revelations does it say homosexuals will not enter the new city. The bible barely addresses homosexuality. That's why I can't understand why there is so much up roar about the subject.

 

You showed passaged that speak of sexual acts. Sexual acts and sexuality are two very different things. So, like I said, there is nothing in the bible that states being homosexual is wrong or that homosexual marriage is wrong.

 

I understand what you're saying, Sec but I come from a different type of Christian attitude.

Homosexuality is a sin just like every other sin, and punishment isn't to be more severe for it.
I've sinned more than my share, and I'm no better than any homosexual.

In other words, they are no different than you or I.
Types of sin is the only way we differ.

If World Vision allowed them to be a part of their organization (in whatever way this news story came up), it's no big deal.... on the surface.
Liars are probably part of it, men who have cheated on their wives are probably part of it, etc, etc etc.
Confessing (to God, not a priest) and being forgiven is what matters, not what sins we've committed.

Anyway, homosexuals can be every bit as "charitable" as the best Christian you know. As human beings, they aren't different.
I think the issue World Vision has is that they don't want people "living in sin" to be a part of their organization, and I don't blame them.
I would be willing to bet if one of their members was caught cheating on his wife, he would be asked to leave.
Cheating on his taxes, swearing like a sailor... whichever.

There is a lot of integrity in the World Vision organization, and they want it protected. It is policy, and they have every right to forbid certain members.
I just don't understand why the first news story even existed. I don't know the details but it sure is odd that some announcement about "accepting" some group you consider sinners was even made.

Someone messed up.

 

Liberals will never acknowledge the existence of God. Because they know they would be hell-bound if they accepted God. If anyone is deserving of hell it is liberals. That is also thee reason libs, unsolicited, go out of their way to attack God. Their conscience bothers them. Ever been on a forum and all of a sudden a thread pops up out-of-the-blue attacking God/Believers/Christ/the Bible? Make you wonder why. We know why.

 

Liberal. You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.

But even as an atheist, I would certainly acknowledge the existence of God in a heart beat. . .once there is some evidence presented which backs up the claim.

 

In the context of political history in the USA it means exactly what I think it means. Primarily starting with LBJ and going forward from there. In the UK, it has a different definition. Other nations? I do not know if they even use the term.

 

This is a non-sequitur to your other post. Do you think all liberals are atheists, cause that seemed to be what you were stating.

Term liberal outside of a strict context is also meaningless. There are liberal Christians, as in those who follow a looser interpretation of the bible than say evangelicals, which use a very strict interpretation.

 

You asked a question and I answered it. Look up what non-sequitur means.

I don't know if they are atheists or not. Why? I do know that if you are a liberal per the American definition you may claim to be a theist but you are not Godly. There are all kinds of gods that people may worship but liberalism runs counter to the God of the Bible. Prove me wrong.

 

Well calling someone a pinko commie seems a bit harsh dontcha think?

You wouldn't acknowledge God exists if He some to you in person. There is plenty of evidence that some just ignore because they want to.

- - - Updated - - -

Your semantics game is not only old but everyone sees thru the BS.

 

You calling me liar fat man? Hey bring on that evidence, I'm your huckleberry.

Oh, and did you actually read the comment I was responding too? Do you to think all liberals are atheists?

 

we basically said the same thing. It's like dancing on the head of a pin. If you abstain from homosexual sex and homosexual petting etc, are you still a homosexual? I say no, so there is nothing wrong there. If you engage in homosexual sex/petting etc then yes, that is a sin.

I guess it comes down to your perspective of what is the definition of a homosexual.