Youth Housing and mandatory Bible studies.

[barbad0s]

What good is equality and neutrality if it does not apply to the most immediate aspects of daily life?

If any private organization can exempt itself, then what is the point at all outside of convenient political targets?

Sounds to me like just a way of skirting some uncomfortable tendencies.

The point is that the private organizations are not obliged to help you and be there for you. I only mentioned that because you were comparing the two.

In theory, of course equality and neutrality would be great by how people like you and I see things, but not everyone has the same interests. Maybe this organization doesn't run in a way that seems ethical or ideal to you, but it is very ethical and ideal to them and it's up to the public to take it or leave it as the funding isn't coming out of the public's pockets. It's quite different from being "controlling" with consequences like public service being controlling would have.

 

[Gaze]

I feel as if I've monopolized the discussion in some way. Sorry [MENTION=1848]Barnabas[/MENTION]. Just to clarify. I can see both sides. I don't think there is one right way to look at this. I still don't think these boys should be forced or made to feel that if they don't go to Bible studies or engage in faith based activities they will lose the help of the organization. But if Grace is a faith based organization whose goal is to minister to people spiritually, then the main question is whether they can minister to these boys in non-intrusive ways. Real faith based organizations will not impose or force faith or create "fake" faith by insisting people "act" Christian in order to receive support. They would have as key principles respect, understanding, and love.

 

[sprinkles]

This is true but these ideologies are far overshadowed in Eastern society now as a whole by collectivist values and the pervasive influence of Confucianism. In the most general sense, @Maven 's point still stands. I do feel like the uproar seen in this thread seems to largely be coming from a gut reaction of defensiveness that stems from the habitual cultural reaction to hold on to individualism, even in circumstances when it may really be arbitrary and non-breaching of the rights or circumstances of others.

This is not about individualism though. This is about the fact that if I make you 'learn' as a requirement in exchange for something that you want, there's a good probability that you will not actually learn.

It was observed for example that some animists at Christian missions would listen to the missionaries and proclaim to believe in God but then they'd go on practicing what they normally would.

 

[sprinkles]

This is true but these ideologies are far overshadowed in Eastern society now as a whole by collectivist values and the pervasive influence of Confucianism. In the most general sense, @Maven 's point still stands. I do feel like the uproar seen in this thread seems to largely be coming from a gut reaction of defensiveness that stems from the habitual cultural reaction to hold on to individualism, even in circumstances when it may really be arbitrary and non-breaching of the rights or circumstances of others.

The point is that the private organizations are not obliged to help you and be there for you. I only mentioned that because you were comparing the two.

In theory, of course equality and neutrality would be great by how people like you and I see things, but not everyone has the same interests. Maybe this organization doesn't run in a way that seems ethical or ideal to you, but it is very ethical and ideal to them and it's up to the public to take it or leave it as the funding isn't coming out of the public's pockets. It's quite different from being "controlling" with consequences like public service being controlling would have.

Of course.

It's unethical to me. I never said that we had to do anything about it or that they had to stop doing it.

 

[Mary Shelley]

This is not about individualism though. This is about the fact that if I make you 'learn' as a requirement in exchange for something that you want, there's a good probability that you will not actually learn.

It was observed for example that some animists at Christian missions would listen to the missionaries and proclaim to believe in God but then they'd go on practicing what they normally would.

Not all gifts are given for the benefit of the receiver.

 

[barbad0s]

I feel as if I've monopolized the discussion in some way. Sorry @Barnabas. Just to clarify. I can see both sides. I don't think there is one right way to look at this. I still don't think these boys should be forced or made to feel that if they don't go to Bible studies or engage in faith based activities they will lose the help of the organization. But if Grace is a faith based organization whose goal is to minister to people spiritually, then the main question is whether they can minister to these boys in non-intrusive ways. Real faith based organizations will not impose or force faith or create "fake" faith by insisting people "act" Christian in order to receive support. They would have as key principles respect, understanding, and love.

Nobody can really say what is "really" Christian/faith based or not anymore. I don't personally know enough about Christianity to have an opinion either way about it which I can solidly back up, but in my gut I agree with you and the notion that faith-based love should be unconditional. Those are probably very few and far between these days.

 

[sprinkles]

Nobody can really say what is "really" Christian/faith based or not anymore. I don't personally know enough about Christianity to have an opinion either way about it which I can solidly back up, but in my gut I agree with you and the notion that faith-based love should be unconditional. Those are probably very few and far between these days.

Well I've been through it and I can tell you that a typical Bible study is not historic or neutral, which is one reason I take issue with this.

Bible study is not just theology, it is often applied theology. The purpose is not just to read but to read and increase faith and apply it to your life.

 

[Gaze]

The purpose is not just to read but to read and increase faith and apply it to your life.

Isn't this the same for most faiths?

 

[barbad0s]

This is not about individualism though. This is about the fact that if I make you 'learn' as a requirement in exchange for something that you want, there's a good probability that you will not actually learn.

It was observed for example that some animists at Christian missions would listen to the missionaries and proclaim to believe in God but then they'd go on practicing what they normally would.

I also think that this will be the case with many of the people there, and the facilitators must be aware of that, but there is also a chance that what I proposed with initiating people into it would happen. Was playing a bit of devil's advocate because I saw an open spot. Because I feel that the chance to convert a handful of people once in a while is probably what the motivation behind their policy is, rather than to just arbitrarily force them to comply to their beliefs in order to stay with them. It's a little tricky of them to do it because they're promoting their own interests, but for the reason I gave before about it not being a public organization, I don't believe this could possibly be truly unethical.

 

[sprinkles]

Isn't this the same for most faiths?

Yes which is why many would not be sullied by this practice.

Ordinarily it is meant to be taken seriously and NOT be a trivial runoff that you make somebody do so they can stay at your house. That makes it like the prerequisite university credit that nobody cares about.

 

[Gaze]

It's a little tricky of them to do it because they're promoting their own interests, but for the reason I gave before about it not being a public organization, I don't believe this could possibly be truly unethical.

They could also see it as a chance to promote what they believe is in the best interest of these people they are helping. Faith has always been about mind, body and spirit. Christianity has always been about a way of life. Most Christian organizations are pretty straightforward about that. What has happened in some cases, is that because people are wary of being "preached to" or lectured about morality, many of these organizations are using more subtle ways to get their message across for fear that they will be seen as cults if they are more overt in stating what they believe. Since there is a less understanding and respect for the Christian faith, and less interest in Christianity (considered too conservative for modern society), many churches and organizations are using low key methods to discuss faith. It's funny, because simply sharing your faith with someone today is seen as indoctrination even if your goal is to simply explain your faith.

Edit: Just to note that being neutral or non-committal to any particular faith or belief doesn't make someone more capable of objective thinking or rational thought about faith.

 

[sprinkles]

They could also see it as a chance to promote what they believe is in the best interest of these people they are helping. Faith has always been about mind, body and spirit. Christianity has always been about a way of life. Most Christian organizations are pretty straightforward about that. What has happened in some cases, is that because people are wary of being "preached to" or lectured about morality, many of these organizations are using more subtle ways to get their message across for fear that they will be seen as cults if they are more overt in stating what they believe. Since there is a less understanding and respect for the Christian faith, and less interest in Christianity (considered too conservative for modern society), many churches and organizations are using low key methods to discuss faith. It's funny, because simply sharing your faith with someone today is seen as indoctrination even if your goal is to simply explain your faith.

I think it's less about morality, and more about morality "because God says so." Being too conservative is not exclusive to Christians either.

Also I see a big part of it being a perceived lack of authenticity. Another issue is corporatism, the 'scam preacher' stereotype and profitizing all things 'Jesus'.

This is all unfortunate because in spite of all of that, I can see merit at its core, but some of these ideas people have are not entirely undeserved.

 

[Gaze]

I think it's less about morality, and more about morality "because God says so." Being too conservative is not exclusive to Christians either.

Also I see a big part of it being a perceived lack of authenticity. Another issue is corporatism, the 'scam preacher' stereotype and profitizing all things 'Jesus'.

This is all unfortunate because in spite of all of that, I can see merit at its core, but some of these ideas people have are not entirely undeserved.

Undeserved or not, people have a right to their beliefs. Nothing is wrong with someone believing in living a particular lifestyle because God is who they believe they are accountable to and because they believe it is a good life and supported by the Gospel. You don't have to agree or support that belief but nothing is wrong with that belief simply because someone doesn't like, agree or connect with it. Just because some people have a problem with a particular faith doesn't mean everyone should.

 

[sprinkles]

Undeserved or not, people have a right to their beliefs. Nothing is wrong with someone believing in living a particular lifestyle because God is who they believe they are accountable to and because they believe it is a good life and supported by the Gospel. You don't have to agree or support that belief but nothing is wrong with that belief simply because someone doesn't like, agree or connect with it. Just because some people have a problem with a particular faith doesn't mean everyone should.

I agree and I haven't said otherwise.

 

[Gaze]

I agree and I haven't said otherwise.

The reason for my response was because you seemed to have a problem with it mainly because it was Christian based "morality based on God said so" which is why I responded by saying, it shouldn't matter because those beliefs are just as valid as any other despite negative experiences many have had with people professing or claiming to represent the Christian faith.

 

[sprinkles]

Also so that people do not continue to get me wrong, I will tell you that I typically have two Mormon elders at my house every week as guests, depending on who is in rotation. We feed them and discuss things.

I would be mortified if one of my family attempted to make my guests study something that they did not want to. I would have to evict the offender from my house.

 

[sprinkles]

The reason for my response was because you seemed to have a problem with it mainly because it was Christian based "morality based on God said so" which is why I responded by saying, it shouldn't matter because those beliefs are just as valid as any other despite negative experiences many have had with people professing or claiming to represent the Christian faith.

It shouldn't matter but not everyone is so neutral.

All beliefs are 'just as valid' until they conveniently aren't for whatever reason, in my experience.

 

[the]

I agree that in the end it's a private organization and they can do as they please. maybe these kids are being forced not by somebody necessarily, but by some circumstance. If this place is their only choice (worst case scenario of course) I guess they would have to endure the studies or live on the streets. Ultimately it's probably good for them unless its Westboro baptist running the show.

i think it is funny to note that people who don't agree with forcing kids (really just bringing them to church along with the parent and not hiring a babysitter for them) to go to church don't seem to mind forcing young adults to go to bible studies.

 

[barbad0s]

i think it is funny to note that people who don't agree with forcing kids (really just bringing them to church along with the parent and not hiring a babysitter for them) to go to church don't seem to mind forcing young adults to go to bible studies.

I think it's cuz... it's not actually forcing them in the latter one.

 

[sprinkles]

I agree that in the end it's a private organization and they can do as they please. maybe these kids are being forced not by somebody necessarily, but by some circumstance. If this place is their only choice (worst case scenario of course) I guess they would have to endure the studies or live on the streets. Ultimately it's probably good for them unless its Westboro baptist running the show.

They can do what they want but it doesn't make it good, smart, or effective.

I'd wager they would have better results by having conspicuous voluntary studies.
1. Seeing somebody doing something and appearing to be happy about it draws interest.
2. Voluntary cohesion makes people less likely to feel uncomfortable about it, especially if friends get in on it
3. Doing something out of interest makes it more likely to be absorbed.

If it's involuntary then people go into resist mode and start complaining about it.

i think it is funny to note that people who don't agree with forcing kids (really just bringing them to church along with the parent and not hiring a babysitter for them) to go to church don't seem to mind forcing young adults to go to bible studies.

This almost makes sense to me actually because at least a young adult is somewhat more prepared to be critical and make choices. So it's probably better then if one must insist on doing it ever.