Christian Adoption

[Chinahand]

I have to say, even as a strong advocate for secularism, that I think this is a little over done.

 

BBC Link

 

A Christian couple opposed to homosexuality have lost a court battle over their right to become foster carers.

 

Eunice and Owen Johns, 62 and 65, of Derby, said the city council did not want them to look after children because of their traditional views.

 

They claim they were "doomed not to be approved" due to their opinions.

 

The High Court ruled that laws protecting people from sexual discrimination should take precedence.

 

I have to say I've not looked into this case in detail, so I've got to be careful.

 

I would have problems with any child been put into a household with extremist views - the Westborough Baptist church would be one example, a cliched Mad Mullah would be the same, ditto an extreme racist household or Neo Nazis.

 

Now where does the line lie between extremist, to non-conventional, to conventioinal.

 

On the whole I don't think most Christians - even fairly traditional ones - are so homophobic as to be excluded from adopting or fostering.

 

We live in a diverse society and for the state to go around nannying such things really is overblown in my view. It is really a double standard - the state won't intervene to stop children being born into such households, and far far worse, but suddenly becomes obsessed with it over adoption/fostering.

 

If trendy social workers wanted they could phrase questions which would put almost any Christian in a very difficult position over these sorts of issues - often unfairly*. I don't approve of that, and so would support mainstream Christians being allowed to adopt.

 

If this case is like that, I think the ruling is problematic, if they are like the Westborough Baptist church then I am much less concerned.

 

The question has to be what precedent has this case set.

 

It could be a major Nanny state piece of social engineering. I hope not, does anyone know more?

 

 

*There are many examples of traditionally religious parents going against stereotype and accepting gay children - Dick Cheney is a good example!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I think this is a more difficult to situation to think about. It isn't as cut-and-dry as the instance of discrimination at the B&B, for example.

 

I am inclined to believe to be that this is a mistake on the part of government. But I am trying to understand the motives of the State here and the possible consequences.

 

Presumably, the issue is about having a young child brought up in a household where they could be exposed to very bigoted views and then of course the issue is about a perpetuation such views. As parents, their views on life and others would quite understandably be picked learnt by the children.

And in sanctioning these two people as foster parents, the government is complicit in maintaining homophobia. That is the most obvious line of reasoning to me, but I don't know for certain if that is what has been considered.

 

Chinahand - you mention about an 'extreme racist household', but why would that be an issue to prevent adoption as opposed with any just generally racist parent? Though I appreciate that so many people harbour racist views in some form it might be foolish to somehow exclude vast numbers of people. Would you maybe mean 'extreme' in the sense of it being recognised that such views WILL be espoused in the household and likely learned by the child?

But would you be comfortable with the idea of a child being brought up in a home where there is a likelihood that a child could form negative views of people of another skin colour? If not, then we ought not to be comfortable with children being brought up by these parents.

 

I do find it a little strange that the social worker picked up upon their homophobic attitudes. I do wonder how and whether that might have some effect on why a decision was made.

[Terse]

They're Pentecostalists - and I think their potential foster kids have had a narrow escape.

 

The Bible

The Bible is the inspired Word of God, giving a true history of the creation of heaven, earth, and humanity and containing a correct prophecy of the ages to come regarding heaven, earth, and the destiny of humanity. Moreover, there is no salvation outside of what is taught in its pages.

 

God

 

There is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4). He is the creator of heaven and earth, and of all living beings. He has revealed Himself to humanity as the Father (Creator), in the son (Savior), and as the Holy Ghost (indwelling Spirit).

Father

God is a Spirit (John 4:24). He is the Eternal One, the Creator of all things, and the Father of all humanity by creation.

He is the First and the Last, and beside Him there is no God (Isaiah 44:6).

There was no God formed before Him; neither shall be there any after Him (Isaiah 43:10).

 

Sin

 

Sin is the transgression of the law, or commandments of God (I John 3:4). The guilt of sin has fallen upon all humanity from Adam until now (Romans 3:23). The wages of sin is eternal death (Romans 6:23; Revelation 20:14) to all those who refuse to accept salvation as set forth in the Word of God.

 

Tongues

 

Speaking in other tongues as the Spirit of God gives utterance is the manifestation God has given as the definite, indisputable, supernatural witness or sign of the baptism of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6).

 

LINK

 

 

Bunch of nutters!

[Jimcalagon]

They're Pentecostalists - and I think their potential foster kids have had a narrow escape.

[...]

Bunch of nutters!

 

 

Having known a number of these (and being related to a couple) I can only agree.

[spook]

I'm far from being a “Happy Clappy” and believe strongly in a robust Christianity but that means understanding the Bible, its form, and it's message in total.

 

I can understand the jew taking a stand against the sins as set out in Deuteronomy and Leviticus because the jew doesn't recognise our Saviour as the Messiah and the third part of the Trilogy.

 

What I can't understand is a form of what amounts to quasi-Christianity ignoring what patently obviously became, at least to some degree, acceptable in the sight of the Lord as the history which so much of the Old Testament is about unfolds, and with particular thoughts about the relationship between David and Jonathan for a start.

 

Putting that aside, and that which is to some degree acceptable is not the same as being approved, let alone the distastefulness most normal people feel about same sex intimate affection and relationships, the issue for me becomes one of the rights and wrongs of exposing a child to bigoted views.

 

Especially when they are based on a partial understanding of their religion by such people plus, and this is very important, the fact that a child must be nurtured in order that he or she will not be disadvantaged in society today, I am of the opinion that people with such entrenched anti-homosexual views and opinions should not be foster parents.

 

These people would serve The Lord much better if they concentrated on the positive aspects about Christianity and its message of salvation rather than a murky bigotry based on a faulty understanding of the religion they claim to hold so important yet about which they obviously understand so little.

 

There are better ways to have dealt with this matter than the way the people in question did. The fact that they chose not to indicates to me that there are probably a number of other problems just waiting beneath the surface where they are concerned.

[Tugger]

They are a different sort of nut to you, you mean.

 

Almost anything is better for a child than being in care. If the demand for foster parents exceeds supply, then I think you need to ignore the odd foible AS LONG AS THE OUTCOME IS A BETTER ONE FOR THE CHILD. That is a difficult phrase to define, of course, but I think it comes down to some of the things that Chinahand mentions. I don't think it is healthy for a child to be taught, say, that all gays should be burned at the stake, but teaching them that, in the foster parents' view, homosexual acts are a sin falls a long way short of that.

 

If it is a toss up between gay/pick your alternative lifestyle rights, or the right of a child not to live in care, then gay (or whatever) rights come second. The enemy of the good is the best

[John Wright]

I wouldn't want to adopt a christian, it might not approve of my lifestyle

[John Wright]

I just wonder which of the strange laws contained in Leviticus, and elsewhere, some christians decide they can ignore and which they feel they have to enforce, and why. It seems a bit pick and mix, to me.

 

Homosexuality is one of many proscribed things, so why do they ignore the others and get all hung up about sexuality

 

eg

 

Leviticus 18:22 clearly states homosexuality to be an abomination. Fundamentalist and Pentecostal christians adhere to that

 

What about these however?

 

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that you may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.

 

2. Jews were allowed to sell daughters into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7.

 

3. No contact is allowed with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24.

 

4. You should burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, as it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9.

 

5. If you work on the Sabbath Exodus 35:2 clearly states you should be put to death.

 

6. Eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, (Is it a lesser abomination than homosexuality?, that rather makes a mess of the queenie industry!)

 

7. Lev. 21:20 states that you may not approach the altar of God if you have a defect in your sight. Does that apply to reading glasses or contacts or what if you have had corrective laser or other surgery?

 

8. Lev. 19:27. effectively says no hair cuts, especially around the temples.

 

9. Lev. 11:6-8 prohibits touching the skin of a dead pig as it will make you unclean, what about shoes, leather seating, etc

 

10. Lev.19:19 prohibits planting two different crops in the same field, or wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).

 

The punishment for may of these infractions, including cursing and blaspheming a lot and sleeping with in-laws? (Lev. 20:14. is to get the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.

[Chinahand]

@LDV - when using the expression "extreme racism" I was hedging! I think the extremes are easier to define, but where the middle ground is I just don't know. I am having great difficulty thinking of a test a judge or whoever could realistically do to stop such decisions being Solomonic.

 

Alot of people in this country are mildly racist, Islamophobic, homophobic etc. Often this isn't expressed in derogatory words directed at individuals, or even impoliteness, but in opinions about how cultures behave which are simplistic, lack nuance and view them as inferior, or lacking or dirty or whatever.

 

In private conversation these opinions will be expressed in such a way as to ask for acceptance of them from those involved in the conversation - that is how intolerence and simplistic thinking about cultures persists and spreads.

 

Trying to overcome that is really difficult and for the state to be invovled is grossly intrusive, illiberal and verges on the Thought Police.

 

Lots of households have these opinions and children raised in them may well pick them up. That is sad, but not a reason for the state to attempt such social control as to stop children being so fostered/adopted.

[Lonan3]

I was raised by foster parents (the most loving, caring and wonderful people I've ever known) who were not particularly religious. Dad went to a C of E, mainly because he loved choral singing while Mum had been raised as a Methodist and stuck firmly to the moral guidance she'd been brought up with.

The complication was that my real mother was a Roman Catholic who insisted on me being sent to St Mary's School which, in those days, was unremittingly strict (Darwin was only mentioned as someone who believed that "we're all descended from crocodiles or some such rubbish!") with teachers determined to mete out punishment for 'sins' long before God could get his hands on us.

Ultimately, it all conspired to make me examine religious beliefs logically and, of course, once you begin to do that, you soon realise that they're pretty much based on nothing more than myth and legend.

If I had been placed in a foster family which held the same views as the church and school, I might have ended up very different - which is a long-winded way of saying that fundamentalists of any persuasion should not be allowed to foster or adopt.

[spook]

I just wonder which of the strange laws contained in Leviticus, and elsewhere, some christians decide they can ignore and which they feel they have to enforce, and why. It seems a bit pick and mix, to me.

 

 

It's a fair enough question and a fair enough observation by people who are ignorant about the Bible and Christianity, and believe that various churches that purport to be Christian (but are all too often not) represent Christianity in action.

 

To begin with Christianity is about following the guidance, example, teaching, and offer of Salvation by Christ.

Secondly the Old Testament is a history, a book of law, and a book of prophecy.

 

From that it is very important to realise that it is a book of many chapters and those chapters written and disclosed over many thousands of years, and that during that period what was once strictly proscribed became less so or even abandoned altogether as times changed, necessities changed, society changed, and The Lord steered his people in the paths of righteousness and His will.

 

Some books in the OT illustrate how some people who engaged in what would once have guaranteed lapidation were actually important people in the ongoing history of the jewish tribes, and it is from this that Christians conclude what is and what is not to be upheld.

 

Then there is the quotation from our Saviour when asked about the law as recorded by Matthew in chapter 22

 

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

 

Pay particular note of the inclusion of the inclusion of the Prophets in that reply for it is by the divine inspiration of the Prophets that the laws set out in Leviticus and Deuteronomy are moderated and the divine inspiration to Paul that caused him to communicate The Good News to what would eventually become the whole world.

[Tweek]

I was raised by wild bears. Grrrrrrr.

 

Didn't do me any harm, other than I still find it tough getting out of bed on a winter morning.

[Addie]

Maybe the powers that be are gently pursuading us that children are most likely to remain untainted if placed with people who don't hold any opinions about anything whatsoever?

[Barrie Stevens]

I just wonder which of the strange laws contained in Leviticus, and elsewhere, some christians decide they can ignore and which they feel they have to enforce, and why. It seems a bit pick and mix, to me.

 

Homosexuality is one of many proscribed things, so why do they ignore the others and get all hung up about sexuality

 

eg

 

Leviticus 18:22 clearly states homosexuality to be an abomination. Fundamentalist and Pentecostal christians adhere to that

 

What about these however?

 

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that you may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.

 

2. Jews were allowed to sell daughters into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7.

 

3. No contact is allowed with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24.

 

4. You should burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, as it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9.

 

5. If you work on the Sabbath Exodus 35:2 clearly states you should be put to death.

 

6. Eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, (Is it a lesser abomination than homosexuality?, that rather makes a mess of the queenie industry!)

 

7. Lev. 21:20 states that you may not approach the altar of God if you have a defect in your sight. Does that apply to reading glasses or contacts or what if you have had corrective laser or other surgery?

 

8. Lev. 19:27. effectively says no hair cuts, especially around the temples.

 

9. Lev. 11:6-8 prohibits touching the skin of a dead pig as it will make you unclean, what about shoes, leather seating, etc

 

10. Lev.19:19 prohibits planting two different crops in the same field, or wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).

 

The punishment for may of these infractions, including cursing and blaspheming a lot and sleeping with in-laws? (Lev. 20:14. is to get the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.

 

How can anyone say that the Bible is the word of God?

 

It has been re-written many times. I have myself done three translations of Mark's Gospel to suit various sects or sentiments (Each one 320 pages)....It was done over 16 years working many hours a day so it would have needed a massive team to do the whole lot!

 

ie I have done A Spiritualist Version, a Christian Spiritualist Version, a Christian Mystic Version. Plus two books of Essays.

 

I quote from the Preface of "The Son of God Myth and the Christmas Legend" by Barrie Stevens out in the Autumn in hard back.(Price? They haven't told me yet!)

 

QUOTE

 

The King James Version

 

The King James Version of the Bible (KJV) is no more the authoritative “word of God” than are these Christian Mystic essays.

 

The very least that anyone, including this author, can claim is that there has been inspiration and guidance not of this world to a greater or lesser extent in each instance. The reader may care to judge as to which is the more inspired according to their own sensitivity. Nevertheless, because of the undoubted scholarship that went into the KJV, and due to the quality of its source material in terms of ancient manuscripts, it is the orthodox version upon which this work is based. Tradition has also played a great part as it was the King James Version I was both taught at school and in confirmation class.

 

The King James Version began life in 1604 when fifty or so learned men and scholars were hired by the government of the day to begin work on a new version of the Bible. King James VI of Scotland succeeded to the throne after the death of Elizabeth I in March 1603. His vision was that of a new Bible being a focal point of the kingdom and one against which the whole country could measure itself.

 

During the reign of Elizabeth I there had been no universally accepted English text of the Bible. Puritans who distanced themselves from the pomp and circumstance of the Church used the Geneva Bible which itself was drawn from the Protestant translation of William Tyndale and for which work he was executed in 1536. The drawback was that the Geneva Bible had been assembled by a team of Calvinistic Englishmen of republican tendencies in Geneva. The work was packed full of anti-royal messages and translated the Hebrew word for King as “tyrant”.

 

The Elizabethan church had produced the now long forgotten Bishops’ Bible translated by fourteen high churchmen. Very Latin and of archaic phraseology, it was too elated for its own good.

 

The King James Version was intended to establish a Bible of perfect text. Under the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Richard Bancroft, it was decided that the text should not contain critical margins, have no arcane language and be a true and accurate text. All shades of opinion were to be included from moderate Puritan to High Anglican. Six committees were formed. There were two in Westminster, two in Cambridge and two in Oxford, each having nine members. Their pivotal leader was Lancelot Andrewes, Dean of Westminster Abbey, then Bishop in succession of Chichester, Ely and Winchester. He was fluent in fifteen modern languages and six ancient languages.

 

Another key man was Arab scholar William Bedwell. Also there was Sir Henry Saville, Warden of Merton and Provost of Eton who was to spend £8,000 on his own edition. Others were involved in the power politics of the day. William Barlow wrote lying pamphlets on behalf of the King. Thomas Ravis persecuted non-conformist ministers.

 

The Authorised Version of the Bible, the King James Version, stemmed from a combination of politics, controversy, literature, adventure and business. The compilers were not liberal clergymen anxious to please a sceptical world. The King James Version is based on a belief in the overwhelming divine authority of the King and of which the royal authority was an extension.

 

It is said that nothing like the King James Version of the Bible will ever be written again. I disagree. Christian Mysticism is evidence of a new and emerging trend towards belief and religion founded not upon academic theology and blind faith, but on personal suprantural and mystical experience of which only the questing individual can be aware.

 

UNQUOTE

 

How odd that Christians quote the Old Testament, essentially a collection of Judaistic texts, and yet do not class themselves as Jews (and often do not like Jews!)

 

Jesus of course was a Jew and was indeed circumcised as it says in the New Testament.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prologue

 

This is a time of change during which humanity is on the march towards spiritual and intellectual freedom. Those who have become aware of the eternal verities have largely discarded the ancient shibboleths, the creeds, doctrines, ritual and theology of past organised religions. These same have served to stunt progress and to imprison the soul.

 

This is also a time when tremendous elemental and spiritual forces have been unleashed for the benefit of those who are ready to both explore and receive the truths of the Holy Spirit. Increasingly, humanity is tending not to trust the old, once venerated simply because it was old.

 

Most of us have seen the world turned upside down in our own generation and with glimpses of the greater life revealed, have little respect for those who would seek to be our spiritual leaders and yet who have become enslaved by doctrines which inwardly they do not themselves believe.

 

This is the time of the thrusting, questing soul; the eager soul; the driven soul searching for that which enables personal progress to manifest by answering at least some of the questions, solving some of the problems that are the inevitable concomitants of present day developments.

 

The future belongs to the spiritually aware. The future does not belong to the conventional theologians. They have had their day. They have nothing to offer. The future belongs to the eternal verities of the Holy Spirit. The innate awareness that we are spiritual beings on a human journey. That we are on the Material-plane to learn as we would at school. That we are eternal beings from a different plane of existence.

In short, more will come to accept that which was taught by the founders of the world’s oldest religions; that we are spirits with bodies and not bodies with spirits. We survive our physical death and the awareness of that, together with all its consequences, is one of the most precious discoveries we can make when on this earthly journey.

 

If any doubt or contest that let them bear in mind this quotation from The Acts of the Apostles:-: ‘He cried out in the Council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor Spirit: but the Pharisees confess both’ Acts 23 verses 6-8.

 

Therefore, as the compiler of this work, I would like to receive the same concession as was apparently accorded to Paul the Apostle: ‘And there arose a great cry: and the Scribes that were of the Pharisees’ part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a Spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God’ Acts 23 verse 9.

 

There is no doubt that powerful forces will be arrayed against that which is contained herein and any who seek to teach it. However, those who might attempt to oppose, the professional theologians and trained clerics, many of them but not all, have nothing to offer save antiquated and erroneous translations of the ancient texts which once contained the truths of the Holy Spirit.

 

Many will try to live in the splendour of the past because they have no glory of today. Their churches and cathedrals are a pale reflection of past importance, places wherein a book or a creed builds a barrier between this world and the next.

 

This is why orthodox religion has ceased to have any meaning for so many. Orthodoxy has become adulterated with theology. The eternal verities have been obscured. Those who have denied the power of the Holy Spirit as a living supranatural experience today, here and now, are reaping the efficacy of the spiritual laws in that they no longer have control over the minds of the people as they had in days gone by.

 

The planned for forthcoming Christian Mystic Gospels are a revival in part of that knowledge possessed by the Ancients. The Christian Mystic Gospels are part of an expression of the truths of the Spirit of God which alone can satisfy the minds and the souls of those who truly yearn to know.

[Tugger]

FUCK OFF YOU BORING GIT