Posted on 05/17/2012 12:32:51 PM PDT by QT3.14
Read the rest of my post. I clearly mention dinner at home, not out in public. If it is a problem for you. Then don’t apply to work there.
It mentions that they take no public money and they are a religious organization. As a private organization they can decide to do that. I don’t see why people have gotten their knickers in such a twist over this.
-From my original post.
Yes.
Go away...
Excellent to see a Bible college promoting Biblical standards.
By the way, I think the most relevant scripture in understanding the alcohol provisions is this one:
“It is good neither to eat meat, nor to drink wine, nor anything by which your brother stumbles, or is offended, or is made weak.” Romans 14:21, King James 2000 Bible
The college isn’t stating that staff can’t drink alcohol, just not in public or for 6 hours prior to college events. It appears they are trying to prevent students from seeing staff and faculty indulging or under the influence of alcohol. College students are famous for being “weak” when it comes to alcohol use.
Intercultural Studies at a Christian University is equivalent to Missions.
If they are going to go after sinners, I would prefer that they start with the envious and covetous.
When did God level their cities?
<><<><
Well there is that whole Great Flood thing.
I once posted a New Years thread on the importance of tradition, and I was so blasted that I passed out on the keyboard.
Fortunately, since that time I have stopped drinking completely.
Yea, that's the ticket.
Good! There are lots of young PhDs who are looking for work.
It’s the Baptist culture in the United States. I spent many years in Europe, and the Baptists there drank like, well, Europeans.
That sentence awakens my inner grammar Nazi. Doesn't anyone proofread any more?
Wasn’t wine served at The Last Supper?
However, I'm not Baptist either.
One back story that is being neglected is that the Southern Baptist Convention recently added alcohol use to their list of things prohibited for clergy, teachers and employees. I suspect most of these people quitting the college like an occasional beer or glass of wine and it is not a mass exodus of people out of the closet. One of the problems with legalism is that it adds to God’s laws in an attempt to make one holy. So if God’s law prohibits drunkeness, then you can go one step further and prohibit all alcohol enjoyment and observing that might make you more “saved.” I have often wondered that if you are good at avoiding man-made “sins” then do people see it as a cover for when they commit actual sins? Such as, I might steal but at least I don’t dance or have long hair or whatever.
This sort of legalism creates unnecessary burdens while it actually makes sin less serious. If sin is just a checklist of things to avoid, rather than a part of our fallen nature, then maybe there is a lot we can do for ourselves without Christ. One could get a false sense of security, waving a very selective list of sins (like sinful sexual practices) plus social taboos about drinking, and thinking, like the rich young ruler, “I am doing pretty good according to my list, so what do I need this Jesus for.” I support the right of a religious institution to insist on its people following the doctrines of the organization and for the people to be good examples and not to engage in open, blatant sin. But mixing actual sins with social customs or taboos is one problem. Reducing the problem of sin to a checklist is an additional problem, as if the point of Christianity is to make one a better practitioner of the Law (with a little help from God, perhaps).
Aside from forbidding an active role in a gay relationship, the lifestyle pledge also bans pre-marital sex, adultery and drug use and abuse. Additionally, employees are asked to be active members of a church and to live their lives as committed, Bible-believing followers of Jesus Christ.
A private employer who might suffer considerable damage from scandals involving these behaviours has the right to have employees who will reflect their standards of behaviour to avoid damage to their reputation.
God has nothing to do with denominations. It’s all about a relationship with HIM not about a ‘religion’. One serves HIM because they want to (their heart), not because of rule #1 or #50.
All I see is they are asked to affirm "I reject as acceptable" [sic] those practices. Rejecting them as unacceptable doesn't mean pledging not to practice.
People just don’t want to pay public welfare benefits for two lunatics sodding off all day.
Muslims would just kill homosexuals.
Taking into consideration broken clocks tell the correct time twice each day, maybe “spread the other cheek” is not a good public policy.
In your unabridged Oxford Dictionaries, the word “faggotry” denotes the bundling of steel to be hammered or rolled together.
Mammalian evolution is entirely heterosexual.
Monogamy is not required for evolution, monogamy is a tenet of religion.
To prohibit polyandry and polygyny is an ecclesiastic rule of law.
To establish an ecclesiastic standard of monogamy for homosexuals is nothing but RELIGIOUS FAGGOTRY.
Democrats live in a fantasy world where fairies wave magic wands over their anus and babies materialize out of thin air.
All men are born of a woman.
If you have to tell grown men that babies will not come out of their rectums, there is no hope for any rational discourse...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.