World Vision, Gays, and Hypocrisy

"World Vision, Gays, and Hypocrisy" (by nakedpastor David Hayward)

“World Vision, Gays, and Hypocrisy” (by nakedpastor David Hayward)

Many children have lost support due to the fact that World Vision will employ Christians in same-sex marriages.

I’m aware of the issue some have with such organizations.

I’m also aware that World Vision does more than feed people.

I’m also aware that this cartoon only addresses a part of the issue.

I’m also aware of the fact that people have a right to their own consciences.

I’m also aware that support for World Vision might increase because they’ve opened their hiring policy.

What I’m addressing is our hypocrisy.

My hope is that this cartoon would expose a bit of that.

SHOP

You may also like...

68 Responses

  1. Sabio Lantz says:

    Or why pay homosexual gas station owners, carpenters, electricians, coaches, physician, politicians, teachers ….

    They are everywhere!

  2. Nolan Cox says:

    Fred Phelp’s spirit lives on.

  3. Wendy says:

    Instead of finding those things that divide us, why aren’t we focusing on what unites us? In this case, isn’t the mission of far greater importance than the individuals? This is an opportunity for those who do not know anyone who is gay (I mean, homosexuals make up about 3.5% of the population in the US so there is a strong possibility that they personally don’t know anyone who actually is gay, lesbian or bisexual) to interact with someone who is gay. Perhaps that would be the first step to ending bigotry. When you meet the ‘enemy’ and discover that they are just like you, they can no longer be your enemy. I’ve had the privilege of knowing several gay people in my lifetime. And they are just like me. They want to be accepted, understood and loved for who they are. Isn’t that what we ALL want?

  4. Wendy says:

    Instead of finding those things that divide us, why aren’t we focusing on what unites us? In this case, isn’t the mission of far greater importance than the individuals? This is an opportunity for those who do not know anyone who is gay (I mean, homosexuals make up about 3.5% of the population in the US so there is a strong possibility that they personally don’t know anyone who actually is gay, lesbian or bisexual) to interact with someone who is gay. Perhaps that would be the first step to ending bigotry. When you meet the ‘enemy’ and discover that they are just like you, they can no longer be your enemy. I’ve had the privilege of knowing several gay people in my lifetime. And they are just like me. They want to be accepted, understood and loved for who they are. Isn’t that what we ALL want?

  5. David says:

    right on

  6. Love that the child has such common sense wisdom! This is such a non-issue with the vast majority of kids, youth, and young adults. I left ministry in a church (ELCIC) that battled over same-sex blessings/marriage for over a decade (until it was finally approved). It was exhausting and such a waste of resources. At each national convention the issue created such a maelstrom of hostility and division among the older delegates. Meanwhile the few youth delegates in attendance rolled their eyes and shook their heads at the rest of us–grow up already would you!

  7. Bobby says:

    But grocery stores aren’t para-church ministries that claim to have ties to a faith that believes in the sinfulness of homosexuality. I think the evangelical response would be the same if grocery stores were both hiring homosexuals while also claiming to be a para-church ministry of some sort.

    The response seems toward World Vision seems to be, “you are Christians, how can you do this?”

    Whereas the mindset toward most grocery stores, whether conscious or not, is, “They aren’t a Christian company so of course they’re going to hire homosexuals, etc.”

    So I guess I don’t see how the two circumstances are the same.

  8. Wendy says:

    Bobby: When for-profit corporations in this country are fighting in court to be treated like people, I think the comparison is valid. If you are denying assistance to someone (even by proxy) because of a “deeply held religious belief,” then you better go whole hog with that deeply held religious belief, if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise, it is an excuse of convenience.

  9. Gary says:

    Hey Samil…John Piper does not speak for God. And it is pretty obvious his understanding of the bible is superficial at best. It is infuriating to continue to hear these fundamentalist quacks continue to act as if their view is God’s and how dare anyone challenge them.

  10. Anne Oppermann says:

    The tide has turned with respect to gay marriage. More and more people are rejecting the views of John Piper, Mark Driscoll and the Southern Baptists. This took so much courage for World Vision to change their policy. In the long run, it will be beneficial to all, especially the people they feed and care for around the world. It galls me that people refer to the Bible being “clear” about this issue. Not to this follower of Jesus!

  11. Samuel says:

    @Gaey was Apostle Paul a fundamentalist quack

  12. Anne Oppermann says:

    @ Samuel – organizations aren’t Christian; people are.

  13. Michael Bell says:

    Hi David,

    When I heard of this issue I immediately thought of the grocery store connection. I was planning a rant on Internet Monk to go up Thursday at midnight. I then saw your cartoon. It encapsulates the key elements of what I was thinking perfectly. I was wondering if I might use it as the header for my post on Thursday.

  14. David says:

    Of course Michael. I’d be honored. Just link back. Thanks!

  15. Gary says:

    @Samuel – First of all the apostle Paul did not use the terms homosexual, homosexual offender, etc., which you find in your modern bible. He was not referring to sexual orientation, but rather to one or more of the forms of abuse prevalent in his day. Secondly, the apostle Paul was just a man caught in time. His views pertaining to women are flat out wrong and contrary to Jesus teaching. But you probably understand this already. (That is, unless in your church women are required to remain silent)

    Think about it!!

  16. Mark Anderson says:

    I saw the title, and thought this was going to be a “Chick-fil-a” story about World Vision discriminating against gays (I’m a little behind on my news gathering). My wife and I sponsor a child through World Vision, and if they care more about the job performance of their employees than about their sexual orientation, it makes me think maybe we need to increase our donation.

  17. Your cartoon is a bit simplistic. Purchasing from the grocery store, etc. is not the moral equivalent to partnering with a purported Christian agency to do ministry. There are plenty of Christian agencies doing the same work World Vision does and they do not compromise on such an important biblical, moral, social issue as sexual orientation. There is no exegetical support for sexual relationships of any kind except between a man and woman married to one another. All other expressions are contrary to God’s revealed will in Scripture.

  18. Anne says:

    @David, you are aware that there are other interpretations of Scripture, aren’t you?

  19. Ashley Hynes says:

    Measure the decision to not support World Vision against this teaching of Christ himself and tell me if it’s hypocritical or not “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” – Matthew 22:37-39

  20. kris799 says:

    Yet no concern for the fact that World Vision and other Christian organizations likely hire people who are divorced and remarried (that is in the Bible) or may have had pre-marital sex (regardless of any clauses do we really know). It’s sad that people wanting to get married is seen as a major assault by others.

    I have been thinking about which charities I should give to b/c I have a steady income and World Vision is at the top of my list. This also closes the door on any desire to return to Christianity.

  21. Gary says:

    @ David Daniels

    “There is no exegetical support for sexual relationships of any kind except between a man and woman married to one another. All other expressions are contrary to God’s revealed will in Scripture.”

    This is pure and unadulterated church induced brain washing. Even if I accepted the premise that the Christian bible (in its present form no less) somehow represents the final word on God’s will…it still does not reveal any such edict. quite the contrary in fact. And the entire case against same sex orientation is based upon a gross perversion of honest biblical exegesis. Your view is based on a deliberate perversion of scripture. And you use this perversion to marginalize and exclude an entire population.

    There is nothing “Christian” about that!!

  22. David Daniels says:

    Perhaps you could show me a text I have “perverted.”

  23. Cecilia Davidson says:

    That these guys felt the need to reverse their decision goes to show how their faith is rooted in rocky ground.

  24. Gary says:

    Well thus far…you have not provided any texts for you claim. But perhaps we start with the fact that the term homosexual and homosexual offenders is a very recent addition to the bible and bears no resemblance whatsoever to the original context. And as for “no exegetical support” for sex outside of 1 man and 1 women in marriage…are you actually serious? According to scripture God not only allowed many other variations…but actually provided for and supported them as well.

  25. Gary says:

    BTW – The following passage is far more clear than the supposed claims of scriptural condemnation against homosexual orientation/sex/marriage.

    Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
    1 Corinthians 14:34-35

    I am guessing that even though the accuracy of this translation is not largely challenged, you still have come up with reasons why this very clear directive of Paul’s is not relevant today. Unless of course you believe this passage and attend a church which requires “their” women to remain completely silent in church.

    The case against homosexuality simply will not stand without openly embracing this type of blatant hypocrisy.

  26. Tiggy Sagar says:

    Nazis!

  27. shelly says:

    And now World Vision have reversed their decision. 🙁

    And can we please take into consideration how poverty interacts with LGBTQ+ issues? (Many people on the spectrum are poor, themselves. Also: I’d argue that the number of that population is much higher than stats say, because there are some who are still closeted for whatever reason and chose not to share their orientation.)

  28. Gary says:

    Based on World Vision’s caving into to the Nazi fundamentalists I am seriously now considering pulling my support from them. (The child we have sponsored since he was 3 years old is now grown) Perhaps I need to shift it to a humanitarian organization not affiliated with Christianity. I have come to believe they would be more trustworthy than faith based charities.

    I am truly broken hearted over this.

  29. Alan Hawkins says:

    There are a million interesting points about this mess. Including your caricature of the matter that reduces this to implying that self-righteous people take food from children for silly peripheral issues. You know very well that this cartoon is truth shaping and not truth seeking.

    I would like to see a cartoon about the condemnation of people who redirect their giving because of conscience by those who were not giving until World Vision announced the change. Making this about the kids is high handed piracy of social discussion. It is bullying people whose compassion is not in question by people who politics compelled theirs.

    World Vision will continue to feed children and people who left World Vision will continue to be generous. Making this about the kids is really an offensive tactic of manipulation. People freely support organizations that support their heartfelt devotion. Challenging that devotion when an institution betrays those people is an evil that is going unchallenged in this fiasco. You have not contributed to the discussion you have framed the matter in a way that condemns people who are not guilty.

    This is the kind of thing that makes punishing good people look like a virtue. Get the medieval chambers of coercion scrubbed up. They will be needed by this generation of witch hunters.

  30. Gary says:

    Did the defenders of hate really just stand up and accuse us of using our “medieval chambers of coercion” in our “witch hunt”s? For real? What kind of fucked up perversion of truth is that?

    WOW!!

  31. Gary says:

    And THAT kind of bullshit my friends…is why fundamentalism should be avoided at all costs.

  32. Alan Hawkins says:

    Ah Gary,

    You make my point. I provoked you with my own extreme cartoon of your position. You bit. And now you see why I am so offended at the false and ridiculous caricaturing of generous people by those who are using this debacle by World Vision to turn heroic people into villains. Good day to you sir.

  33. Gary says:

    Nope you make your own point by spewing your hate and attacking those who would stand for the oppressed. I stood up to you…nothing more. Guess what…the tide is turning and more and more of us are done putting up with your perversions and twisting attacks. If lies are your vehicle of choice then I will not say “good day” in return. Rather good riddance as your voice becomes more and more neutered.

  34. Don’t be fooled folks-there is no “fun” in fundamentalism! Sad to hear of this decision but not surprising. Inclusiveness hasn’t traditionally been one of WV’s values. Like many corporations, it’s all about the bottom line. They misread their market and have adjusted their “values” accordingly. The trial balloon has popped.

  35. Tim says:

    Is this World Vision International? Or only the US / North American arm of the organisation?

    Surely everone is aware that World Vision already employs LGB people, even without knowing it?
    So why not treat all their employees, and their families, with the same love and respect? Isn’t this the basis of all “Biblical” relationships?
    Even friendships? And master/slave relationships? (Which are often reinterpreted as employer/employee relationships… ironically, GLB World Vision employees will feel much more like slaves after the last few days of capiriocus decisions!)
    “Yes, slave, we will pay you, as long as you hide the diversity we just encouraged you to reveal yesterday!”

    And what about polygamous relationships?
    They’re permitted in the Bible, aren ‘t they?
    So shouldn’t World Vision be making moves to support them?
    If not, World Vision are enforcing a particular cultural mould that happens to find it conventient to use religious language. But that’s nowhere near genuine “Biblical relationships”.

  36. Jeff says:

    My, my, such angry people here. If we are all indeed Christians as it seems and we believe in the Bible as the word of God and in Jesus as the very Word made flesh, then let me direct your attention to 2 Timothy 2

    “Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.”

    If you truly believe that your view of Scriptures is what is most orthodox, then instead of trying to conk each other over the heads, as brothers and sisters, we should be submitting our orthodoxy to the mercy seat. Pray for one another and plead with God to reveal his truth. Name-calling and finger-pointing is fine for the world but unacceptable amongst the Church of God.

  37. Carmen says:

    Ahhh! I can’t believe this! How can you people find excuses for such a sin!!! One can tell from a distance that so many here have the TV and whole media propaganda as their Bible! God have mercy!!!
    I am to sit and watch how this so radical change of heart of the Americans will affect your country! And I can already see it… What a shame!

  38. Bene D says:

    World Vision Canada is inclusive. Their statement :

    http://churches.worldvision.ca/our-christian-identity-responding-to-world-vision-us-hiring-policy-change/

    I suspect World Vision Canada is not the only country branch with these hiring policies.

    David:

    I think you will appreciate what Wendy Gritter at New Directions has to say:

    http://www.newdirection.ca/blog/world-vision-a-drama-in-5-acts/

  39. David says:

    Thanks Bene. Wendy and I are good friends.

  40. Gary says:

    @ Jeff

    You seem to think bigotry is perfectly acceptable for Christians…but those who stand up to it are committing the horribly unbecoming offense of “name calling”. For real? That is what your faith teaches you? This is not about quarreling…it is about confronting bigotry. I suppose you would have said those who stood up to the bigotry in the church over racial prejudice were also just “quarreling”.

    One thing I do NOT gauge my sense of right and wrong upon is orthodoxy. Not too sure you’ll find many here who do. But your response is very typical of your kind today. When you are not capable or not willing to discuss the issue of homosexuality (one of the most troubling and divisive issues facing the church today) on substance, you simply sidestep the valid questions and seek to shame your opponents into submission. That may still work with those under the spell religions cult control tactics, but that number is shrinking every day.

    Spare me your proof texting and condescending rhetoric. I am not swayed by that bullshit any longer.

  41. Gary says:

    @Carmen – Since when is it your role to define sin? Even for the Christian who believes sin is defined in the bible, this issue not in the least bit clear. (Actually I believe it is clear…homosexuality is not even addressed)

    My beliefs do not come from any “media propaganda” as you insultingly declare. Standing up for the rights of the oppressed should be a very clear principle all of us can agree upon. Sadly…it is not. The evil of bigotry still runs rampant in the Christian faith.

  42. Cecilia Davidson says:

    Since when is it the job of man to define sin, really.
    Besides, my beliefs sadly come from experience – from realizing that so many churches have this persecution complex after dealing with criticism.

  43. Thanks for that link @Bene D.
    Mandated inclusiveness because of government regulations is very different than inclusiveness as a core organizational and, in this case, theological value, no?

  44. David Daniels says:

    @Gary,

    I wrote:
    “There is no exegetical support for sexual relationships of any kind except between a man and woman married to one another. All other expressions are contrary to God’s revealed will in Scripture.”

    You responded:
    “This is pure and unadulterated church induced brain washing. Even if I accepted the premise that the Christian bible (in its present form no less) somehow represents the final word on God’s will…it still does not reveal any such edict. quite the contrary in fact. And the entire case against same sex orientation is based upon a gross perversion of honest biblical exegesis. Your view is based on a deliberate perversion of scripture. And you use this perversion to marginalize and exclude an entire population.

    There is nothing “Christian” about that!!”

    To which I replied:
    “Perhaps you could show me a text I have “perverted.”

    To date, all I’ve seen from most of your replies to any and all is angry, vulgarity-laced rhetoric masquerading as reasoned debate. So, I repeat my last response. Perhaps you could show me a text I have “perverted.”

  45. Gary says:

    @Davud Daniels – You stated…

    “To date, all I’ve seen from most of your replies to any and all is angry, vulgarity-laced rhetoric masquerading as reasoned debate. So, I repeat my last response. Perhaps you could show me a text I have “perverted.” ”

    Interesting. Perhaps you missed my replies…perhaps you choose to side step them altogether. Tell you what, I will copy and paste my responses to your post and see if it jogs your memory. (Or you could just scroll up…lol) You will find no profanity in my replies to you. (Though I gladly use it when I think it is appropriate It can be a very helpful literary tool.) You will also find a very reasoned response challenging your claims. I would be only too happy to get into the discussion further…but thus far it is you who has engaged in the “rhetoric masquerading as reasoned debate”. If you want to have actual reasoned debate…you are going to have to actually respond reasonably rather than dodge.

    My previous responses to you were as follows…

    “Well thus far…you have not provided any texts for your claim. But perhaps we start with the fact that the term homosexual and homosexual offenders is a very recent addition to the bible and bears no resemblance whatsoever to the original context. And as for “no exegetical support” for sex outside of 1 man and 1 women in marriage…are you actually serious? According to scripture God not only allowed many other variations…but actually provided for and supported them as well.”

    And my 2nd comment to you was as follows…

    “BTW – The following passage is far more clear than the supposed claims of scriptural condemnation against homosexual orientation/sex/marriage.

    Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
    1 Corinthians 14:34-35

    I am guessing that even though the accuracy of this translation is not largely challenged, you still have come up with reasons why this very clear directive of Paul’s is not relevant today. Unless of course you believe this passage and attend a church which requires “their” women to remain completely silent in church.

    The case against homosexuality simply will not stand without openly embracing this type of blatant hypocrisy.”

    These are actually very reasoned responses that directly challenge your statement. Both are opening questions that speak to some very core issues in the debate. Answer them or ignore them…I don’t give a shit. (See how I did that? 🙂 ) But don’t just blatantly lie about my comments and expect some sort of pass. LOL

  46. David Daniels says:

    @Gary,

    I think you missed your first reply….and my response to that reply. Here it is:

    Gary March 26, 2014 at 6:58 pm
    @ David Daniels

    “There is no exegetical support for sexual relationships of any kind except between a man and woman married to one another. All other expressions are contrary to God’s revealed will in Scripture.”

    This is pure and unadulterated church induced brain washing. Even if I accepted the premise that the Christian bible (in its present form no less) somehow represents the final word on God’s will…it still does not reveal any such edict. quite the contrary in fact. And the entire case against same sex orientation is based upon a gross perversion of honest biblical exegesis. Your view is based on a deliberate perversion of scripture. And you use this perversion to marginalize and exclude an entire population.

    There is nothing “Christian” about that!!

    David Daniels March 26, 2014 at 7:12 pm
    Perhaps you could show me a text I have “perverted.”

    ________________

    You claim that I my view about sexual relationships is “based upon a gross perversion of honest biblical exegesis.” So, I simply repeat: Perhaps you could show me a text I have perverted.”

    Hurling unsupported statements to the contrary is not proving a case of perverting texts about homosexuality. You have yet to even provide a text supporting homosexuality, much less, demonstrate how I have perverted a text.

  47. David Daniels says:

    @Gary,

    A side note:

    You say: “…I gladly use [profanity] when I think it is appropriate. It can be a very helpful literary tool.”

    The use of profanity is more likely a case of frustration and inability to truly engage in reasoned debate – something akin to the practice of attacking people instead of debating ideas. It is hardly a “helpful literary tool.”

  48. Gary says:

    Nope…didn’t miss my first response at all. I responded to your statement that I did not respond to your question about which text you had perverted. If you keep engaging in subterfuge this is going to become even more difficult to follow than it already is. I can’t believe I have to point this out again…but asking me WHICH text you perverted is kind of a moot point since your claim did not include any texts…you simply claimed a biblical truth/authority without substance. I would be happy to refute your interpretation…but it is difficult to be more specific in my response than you were in your claim without knowing what you based it on.

    Stating that I “have yet to even provide a text supporting homosexuality” is a clear straw man argument and you know it. There are a great many things which the bible does not provide written affirmation of acceptance, but this does not in turn mean they are forbidden. No, the fact is you are the one stating homosexuality is a sin according to the bible, so the burden of proof lies with you. Feel free to pull out any of your 6 proof texts and we can have an objective look at them.

    The fact remains that in my responses I opened two very specific challenges to your claims. One is relating to the accuracy of our modern translations. The second relates to the hypocrisy of selectively enforcing/disregarding biblical mandate. BOTH of these challenges speak to the very core of the debate, and you thus far have completely ignored them. So really…spare me the condescension when thus far I am the ONLY one of the two of us bringing anything to the table.

    As for my selective use of profanity. You assessment of it is…cute. The fact is…just because you have a personal aversion to its use does not mean it is not useful. Selective profanity often portrays a level of clarity of conviction or belief. I have also found it to be quite useful when engaging a fundamentalist as their self righteous condescension usually comes out and is very revealing. I am passionate about this subject…I engage in it passionately. Get over it. (And yourself)

    Bigotry is an ugly thing. It was ugly when we used it to oppress women (some still do), it was ugly when we used it to oppress minorities (some still do), and it is just as ugly when we use it to oppress the minority of same sex orientation. But to claim some biblical justification for something so directly contrary to the teaching of Christ is (I think I have said this before) a perversion of the text. Considering how much of a direct violation of the law of love this is…I would think you would be willing to, AT THE VERY LEAST, honestly evaluate the case for acceptance of the GLBT community. 3 or 4 proof texts that are not consistent with context and proper translation is a pretty weak justification for engaging in something so ugly.

  49. David Daniels says:

    @ Gary,

    Sorry, I’m not taking your bait, Gary.

    At the outset I said:

    “There is no exegetical support for sexual relationships of any kind except between a man and woman married to one another. All other expressions are contrary to God’s revealed will in Scripture.”

    You objected, saying:

    “This is pure and unadulterated church induced brain washing. Even if I accepted the premise that the Christian bible (in its present form no less) somehow represents the final word on God’s will…it still does not reveal any such edict. quite the contrary in fact. And the entire case against same sex orientation is based upon a gross perversion of honest biblical exegesis. Your view is based on a deliberate perversion of scripture. And you use this perversion to marginalize and exclude an entire population.

    There is nothing “Christian” about that!!”

    Gary, it is easy to hurl charges of bigotry and perverting texts. The fact is, you don’t know me, you don’t know how I relate to people who may embrace a lifestyle I believe is wrong. Simply accusing someone doesn’t make your case. So, show me an actual text that I have “perverted”. Provide your exegesis of a biblical text that will demonstrate how I have perverted a text about sexual relationships.

  50. Gary says:

    Typical. Make a completely unsubstantiated claim about what is in the bible, and when challenged fail to provide ANYTHING. You think I am baiting you? What a crock of shit.

    Look, if you are unwilling (or more likely unable) to respond to my points then spare us all the waste of time with your silly peacock posturing. At least the peacock has something to show.

    As for you…either pick a point (any point) and respond, or just fuck off man. I tire of your ignorant games.

  51. David Daniels says:

    @Gary,

    So, finally, when repeatedly asked to demonstrate one text that has been “perverted” (remember, it was you who made the claim), you can only muster:

    “Typical. Make a completely unsubstantiated claim about what is in the bible, and when challenged fail to provide ANYTHING. You think I am baiting you? What a crock of shit.

    Look, if you are unwilling (or more likely unable) to respond to my points then spare us all the waste of time with your silly peacock posturing. At least the peacock has something to show.

    As for you…either pick a point (any point) and respond, or just fuck off man. I tire of your ignorant games.”

    Our exchange reminds me of the following:

    “Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult; whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse. Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you. Instruct a wise man and he will be wiser still; reach a righteous man and he will add to his learning” (Proverbs 9:7-9 NIV).

    I will leave it to others reading this exchange to judge if and/or where you and I might “fit” in this Biblical statement.

  52. David Daniels says:

    Correction: “teach (not ‘reach’) a righteous man….”

  53. Gary says:

    No seriously dude…I really meant pony up or fuck off. I offered multiple points and you have refused to respond to even one of them. Spin it any way you like, I truly don’t give a fuck.

  54. David Daniels says:

    @Gary,

    I see you are employing your “literary tool.” Sad, really.

    I’ve read through your exchanges with several others in this section – they are all tiredly similar. Impugn motives, assign labels, hurl unsubstantiated accusations, and when you don’t get the response you want, use vulgarity.

    I’ll watch for your exegetical support for the legitimacy of sexual relationships outside the parameters of one woman and one man in marriage. If you are willing (able) to provide it, I’ll respond.

  55. Gary says:

    What part of FUCK OFF do you really not grasp?

    LMAO

  56. jake says:

    @gary. you are providing the best arguement for not listening to anything you have to say. Can you answer Dave’s question or not? Obviously you just have a hatred for anybody with an opinion other than your own. Please stop spewing it and offer an intelligent reply.

  57. Mike says:

    @David

    Jesus, David, could you at least make an attempt at addressing the points raised?

    1) Nobody can quote the scripture you’re perverting because you have yet to supply the scripture that explicitly states that homosexuality is wrong; however, one can suggest your perversion of the scripture based on the fact that all popular interpretations of the bible, in regards to the sinfulness of homosexuality, are horse shit. Why not provide the biblical quote and go from there?

    2) You were provided with an instance within the bible where women are subjected. We certainly do not do that today, despite the fact that it is clearly in the bible. That of course is not the only thing in the bible Christians such as yourself now ignore. Address this. Why do you adhere to what you believe the bible states about homosexuality and not anything else? Why ignore that question?

    You’re not looking good here, David. At least make an attempt.

  58. David Daniels says:

    @Mike,

    I see you utilize the same “literary tools” as Gary.

    It was Gary who charged me with following a perversion of honest biblical interpretation, so I’m just asking for one example of my perversion of Scripture. And the topic is about serial relations, not the role of women.

    I will gladly respond to a concrete example of my perverted hermeneutic, if Gary cares to offer it.

  59. David Daniels says:

    That should read “sexual” (not serial) relations.

  60. Gary says:

    @Jake,

    No man…nice try though. It was David who initially made a claim concerning the bible’s position on sexuality. When I challenged his claim he subsequently (and still presently) refused to provide even the most basic biblical reference for his claim. I cannot refute what he refuses to provide. Pretty slick on his part I guess. Just make wild claims, declaring they come from the bible, but refuse to say where or in what context.

    Here, let me give it a try. The bible makes it clear that it is God’s will that all women should be married before the age of 14. In fact there is no place where God provides for marriage under any other circumstances and is therefore clearly God’s will on the subject. Now you might of course come back and tell me my statement is false. In fact you would even be right if you told me I was perverting scripture to come to such a conclusion. But here’s the cool deception I am going to employ. I am going to DEMAND that you specify WHICH scripture I have perverted even though I have provided ZERO scriptural claims to back up my claims of biblical support for my view in the first place. Of course you know that the bible declares no such thing…but I still demand YOU provide the scripture I am perverting even though I have not used any at all. Now you might even go so far as to provide some substantive challenges to my assertion. It won’t matter…because I am like a dog with a bone demanding that you somehow read my mind and try to figure out what verse leads me to believe God will allow no girl over 14 to marry. And until you read my mind I will continue to lie about our exchange and accuse you of making false accusations with no substance. Hell I can use this same tactic for any declaration I choose. The bible states the Earth is fixed and immovable and the sun and stars rotate around it. At least with this one you probably have some ideas of a few verses I am perverting to make such a claim. But even still…unless I am willing to provide a reference and logic for my conclusions…all you know for sure is that I am twisting scripture to come to my conclusions. I will of course continue to dodge every challenge you put forth and falsely state it is YOU who made the false claim.

    Your take on our rather extensive exchange is…amusing.
    LOL

  61. Bene D says:

    @afterthe pulpit

    You are welcome.

    I don’t know if World Vision Canada was dragged kicking and screaming into obeying federal and provincial law. I would be interested in hearing what they have to say about that. If World Vision Canada circumvents Canadian law, employees who are wronged have recourse. If World Vision Canada is unhappy, they are free to pack up and go elsewhere.

    World Vision Canada is a charity and that is a privilege. They serve at the pleasure of all Canadians. As a result, 500 thousand children are sponsored.

  62. jake says:

    @gary

    I reiterate my previous opening statement and say good night, it’s just not worth it.

  63. Gary says:

    @Jake,

    Yeah…sure you do. Whatever man.

    LMAO

  64. Gary says:

    Actually…I suspect “Jake” is David in disguise. The exact same refusal to respond to anything…just empty unsubstantiated declarations. Why do you guys even show up if you are so unwilling to participate? Thanks for illustrating the insanity of fundamentalism guys. (or guy)

  1. March 26, 2014

    […] And finally, here’s a cartoon from David Hayward: […]

  2. March 27, 2014

    […] cartoon and post yesterday got lots of attention. I wasn’t aiming at World Vision but those who withdrew their support […]