Christian Adoption

[La_Dolce_Vita]

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

Aside from agreeing or disagreeing with what's going on, this isn't about rights at all.

 

It is interesting that you talk about comparing gay people being burned at the stake and homosexual act being a sin. Say for example that the child grows up to be gay.

Now if he has been brought up to have an understanding that he will be sinning, i.e. acting against God, then what are the implications for the identity, self-esteem, and mental health? It is certain that he will experience internalised homophobia and more likely to than someone brought up without such an understanding. How does the teenager and adult reconcile this Faith with who he actually is?

 

It does also bring up another matter, is it right that parents and foster parents indoctrinate their children with such beliefs? I think they absolutely shouldn't. In respect of Christianity it would be (unintentionally) cruel. It would be mental abuse to introduce a child to the threat of hell.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

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.

Is it not the case that God said he was 'unchanging' (http://www.biblestudyguide.org/topical/god-unchanging.htm)?

 

And then what about this: http://bible.cc/matthew/5-18.htm

 

If this is the case, then again, why are some of his 'commandments' accepted and some disregarded? If it was morally correct or incorrect to do something as stated in the Old Testament, then it should be the case today.

[Cambon]

 

It is interesting that you talk about comparing gay people being burned at the stake and homosexual act being a sin. Say for example that the child grows up to be gay.

Now if he has been brought up to have an understanding that he will be sinning, i.e. acting against God, then what are the implications for the identity, self-esteem, and mental health? It is certain that he will experience internalised homophobia and more likely to than someone brought up without such an understanding. How does the teenager and adult reconcile this Faith with who he actually is?

 

It does also bring up another matter, is it right that parents and foster parents indoctrinate their children with such beliefs? I think they absolutely shouldn't. In respect of Christianity it would be (unintentionally) cruel. It would be mental abuse to introduce a child to the threat of hell.

 

I think that the care system has lost a good fostering couple here. Firstly, what is an eight year old doing questioning sex and homosexuality? It is a virtually irrelevant question. Whether you do or don't agree with ALL the christian beliefs, the general morals are the basis for a good upbringing. I think I would rather take a risk on this couple continuing to be foster parents than some drinking, smoking, partying couple whos morals are potentially lower.

 

This was a bad decision by the judge.

[Terse]

 

I think that the care system has lost a good fostering couple here. Firstly, what is an eight year old doing questioning sex and homosexuality? It is a virtually irrelevant question. Whether you do or don't agree with ALL the christian beliefs, the general morals are the basis for a good upbringing. I think I would rather take a risk on this couple continuing to be foster parents than some drinking, smoking, partying couple whos morals are potentially lower.

 

This was a bad decision by the judge.

The trouble is that they would probably raise the child to be a narrow-mided, homophobic, racist, anti-semitic, bible-bashing nutter. A bit like Spook, who probably would have supported their cause if they had been a little... errm....paler.

[Cambon]

The trouble is that they would probably raise the child to be a narrow-mided, homophobic, racist, anti-semitic, bible-bashing nutter. A bit like Spook, who probably would have supported their cause if they had been a little... errm....paler.

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that they were foster parents. Foster parents typically only look after children for a short time. They don't "raise" children through the years as adoptive parents do.

[spook]

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.

Is it not the case that God said he was 'unchanging' (http://www.biblestudyguide.org/topical/god-unchanging.htm)?

 

And then what about this: http://bible.cc/matthew/5-18.htm

 

If this is the case, then again, why are some of his 'commandments' accepted and some disregarded? If it was morally correct or incorrect to do something as stated in the Old Testament, then it should be the case today.

 

The Bible is a strange book and for a multitude of reasons requires great study not only of itself but also in conjunction with other contemporary sources (such as they are) and the verse you have extracted is a classic example of where the whole picture needs to be viewed.

 

In Matthew 5 Jesus is preaching to the 5000 in what is known as the Beatitudes. He is explaining how man's relationship with The Lord and with his fellow man should be established. The context that this came about was because of the, to put it mildly, animosity that existed between His teaching and the way that the lawyers of the day were implementing the Holy Writ.

 

In verse 17 He states, as a means of diverting accusation that we was or would be blasphemous by denying The Law, that such was not the case, but all too often people who read the verse :-

 

 17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil

 

and they take notice of “The Law” and yet they ignore “The Prophets” through which The Lord has disclosed how The Law should be interpreted over time. In much of Deuteronomy and Leviticus what is set out is not Law per se but a code of conduct and a scale of punishment. Things that in later years prophets were inspired by The Lord to bring into line with changing times ad changing circumstances.

 

Is The Lord consistent and immutable?

 

Of course he is but keep in mind that in then case of Deuteronomy it comprises three parts. The first relating to the disobedience of the Israelites to go into the Promised Land, the second the description of the appointment of leaders to in effect be Moses's lieutenants, and the third, a code of conduct to be followed that included but was separate from the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments that formed The Covenant between Man and God for when they did enter The Promised Land.

 

The Covenant between Man and God was never changed in any way, indeed Jesus when asked about The Law stated that the assertion that loving The Lord and his commandments was number one.

 

There is no change in the Covenant between God and Man, at least not by The Lord. The Decalogue remains as it did when brought down by Moses.

 

(Except of course in the case of Roman Catholicism but that's a different matter, and then again the RC church uses Christianity while being a decidedly un-Christian organisation).

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I think that the care system has lost a good fostering couple here. Firstly, what is an eight year old doing questioning sex and homosexuality? It is a virtually irrelevant question. Whether you do or don't agree with ALL the christian beliefs, the general morals are the basis for a good upbringing. I think I would rather take a risk on this couple continuing to be foster parents than some drinking, smoking, partying couple whos morals are potentially lower.

 

This was a bad decision by the judge.

Not saying I disagree with your conclusion over morals overall, but...

 

But the parents would not be moral in teaching their child about hell, essentially threatening them to behave in a certain manner by reference to this place.

 

And you are making the assumption that the alternative would necessarily be less moral parents. I think the State would identify any particular issues that would cause problems, would they not?

 

I don't know. I used to question sex and sexuality when I was about ten. I was never given the full truth. In fact, I was told more about homosexuality and not necessarily in a good light. I think it was after watching the Naked Civil Servant with my mother and getting a little confused.

[Cambon]

 

But the parents would not be moral in teaching their child about hell, essentially threatening them to behave in a certain manner by reference to this place.

 

Why? Whether hell is a is place, a state of mind, or a situation that one can end up in, using stories like bible stories can be very useful to get children to understand right from wrong, and good from bad / evil. If you are going to ban the bible as a book of learning, perhaps we should ban The Tale of the Ugly Duckling and The Little Engine That Could.

 

I am not a particularly religeous person, but I do believe that much of the teachings of the bible are comparable and useful in day to day life. Besides they are the basis for the consitution of the UK, US and IOM.

[Terse]

 

Why? Whether hell is a is place, a state of mind, or a situation that one can end up in, using stories like bible stories can be very useful to get children to understand right from wrong, and good from bad / evil. If you are going to ban the bible as a book of learning, perhaps we should ban The Tale of the Ugly Duckling and The Little Engine That Could.

 

I am not a particularly religeous person, but I do believe that much of the teachings of the bible are comparable and useful in day to day life. Besides they are the basis for the consitution of the UK, US and IOM.

That's the worrying bit. If it is correctly taught as a series of legends, myths and fables there is little problem (except that there are far better and less contentious stories available for the same purpose)

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I am not sure you comprehend the meaning of threat. For Christians, hell is a real place. It's entail endless and perpetual torture of those who have sinned and not asked for forgiveness or those who have perpetrated the unforgivable sin.

 

You honestly think it is useful to take advantage of a vulnerable mind to threaten a child with being eternally and horrifically punished?

 

There is a difference between teaching a child, when they are not so impressionable about the Bible and other religions as a theological pursuit. Very wrong to indoctrinate it.

 

But I agree that many Bible stories have a moral story that would be agreeable to me. But where is reference to God in this? Once you insert the Christian God you talk as if this thing exists, when it clearly does not.

 

Basis for the Constitution? How so?

[Evil Goblin]

Once you insert the Christian God you talk as if this thing exists, when it clearly does not.

But if people are convinced that God does exist then the idea is reified and, as far as they are concerned, He clearly does exist.

[Cambon]

I am not sure you comprehend the meaning of threat. For Christians, hell is a real place. It's entail endless and perpetual torture of those who have sinned and not asked for forgiveness or those who have perpetrated the unforgivable sin.

 

You honestly think it is useful to take advantage of a vulnerable mind to threaten a child with being eternally and horrifically punished?

But if you are going to take Christianity to that extent, it is said that God forgives all your sins

There is a difference between teaching a child, when they are not so impressionable about the Bible and other religions as a theological pursuit. Very wrong to indoctrinate it.

But I agree that many Bible stories have a moral story that would be agreeable to me. But where is reference to God in this? Once you insert the Christian God you talk as if this thing exists, when it clearly does not.

Perhaps, but who said anything about a Christian God? How do you know a God does not exist? The majority of the people in the world believe a God exists. I believe a God exists. You cannot prove that one does not.

Basis for the Constitution? How so?

Ever listen to Tynwald on the Radio? UK Parliament? They always start with prayers.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Once you insert the Christian God you talk as if this thing exists, when it clearly does not.

But if people are convinced that God does exist then the idea is reified and, as far as they are concerned, He clearly does exist.

In your mind it would seem to the believer to exist. But existence is determined by something that manifests in the real world. The question is how this God manifests.

Are you also referring to the ontological argument?

[Tweek]

Once you insert the Christian God you talk as if this thing exists, when it clearly does not.

But if people are convinced that God does exist then the idea is reified and, as far as they are concerned, He clearly does exist.

In your mind it would seem to the believer to exist. But existence is determined by something that manifests in the real world. The question is how this God manifests.

Are you also referring to the ontological argument?

I wish another forum would adopt you...fer chrisakes.

[Evil Goblin]

In your mind it would seem to the believer to exist. But existence is determined by something that manifests in the real world. The question is how this God manifests.

Are you also referring to the ontological argument?

No - I wasn't referring to the ontological argument (though I can see its' relevance). I was pointing out that to the Believer God does manifest Himself in the World.