Christian Adoption

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Yes, why someone? You'd need to explain why you think it was a someone rather than a something for that to be believed by anyone.

 

And the resulting question would be who created that God...and then that God, etc.

[Aquarius]

FUCK OFF YOU BORING GIT

 

LMFAO!!!!!!!!

[midnight]

Well I will keep my opinions to myself as to weather gay couples ect should be able to adopt children, my POV is irrelevant!

Think the fostering of children tho needs VERY careful monitoring!

This case recently, of which there are many similar cases sadly, were the social services called so many times to check on a child in a foster home only be to be told excuse after excuse they cant see the child, should of raised alarm bells!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unfortunatly the child was found to have been cruely treated and had so many cuts bruises and broken limbs ect!

The social services should of DEMANDED to see the child at a much earier instance!

 

But I do echo the point here that for many children in childrens homes, it can be very unhealthy environment!

Of course there are many good childrens homes, we mustn’t villianise , villinze, villinise oh I just cant spell the word and that’s even using a spell checker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But those poor little ones in the Romanian homes, institutionalized, were they are left in beds for goodness knows how many hours and suffer all kinds of mental health and behavioural disorders ect were they rock back and fourth out of routine and boredom ect

I was brought to tears just seeing them suffer!!!!

I know a lot of effort and campaign is going towards helping these children but -

I FEEL FAR MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE TO HELP THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I was going to make it my mission to help them all, well I still will, but Im on a different mission at the moment!

[ScotsAlan]

 

LDV, there is no Christian God. There is one God. Whether you want to call him God, Allah, Buddha, or the DSS, that is up to you. You are in the minority here. Nearly every living human being believes there is a higher being. In the Christian faith we call him God. If He does not exist for you, I feel sorry for you. That is your prerogative.

 

 

I agree with the first bit. But I don't agree with feeling sorry for people with no belief. Each to their own I say.

 

But to me, the belief in Heaven and Hell, and ones admittance to it by being a believer is a paradox.

 

Surely, someone who believes will never actually get to heaven..

 

You see, I reckon a believer should know the rules. It therefore follows that they know of the rules they have broken. And I don't mean the rules written in a book. I mean the really tough ones common to most religions, such as forgivness and charity. There have probably been just a hand full of people in the entire history of humanity who have led "perfect" lives.

 

I believe, but I certainly don't think I will be going "upstairs" after gasping my last breath.

 

But should the couple be allowed to look after kids? Well, I would say yes. After all, Santa and his sleigh is a fairy story. But there are not many parents who don't teach their kids about him :-)

[ScotsAlan]

Well I will keep my opinions to myself as to weather gay couples ect should be able to adopt children, my POV is irrelevant!

Think the fostering of children tho needs VERY careful monitoring!

This case recently, of which there are many similar cases sadly, were the social services called so many times to check on a child in a foster home only be to be told excuse after excuse they cant see the child, should of raised alarm bells!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unfortunatly the child was found to have been cruely treated and had so many cuts bruises and broken limbs ect!

The social services should of DEMANDED to see the child at a much earier instance!

 

But I do echo the point here that for many children in childrens homes, it can be very unhealthy environment!

Of course there are many good childrens homes, we mustn’t villianise , villinze, villinise oh I just cant spell the word and that’s even using a spell checker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But those poor little ones in the Romanian homes, institutionalized, were they are left in beds for goodness knows how many hours and suffer all kinds of mental health and behavioural disorders ect were they rock back and fourth out of routine and boredom ect

I was brought to tears just seeing them suffer!!!!

I know a lot of effort and campaign is going towards helping these children but -

I FEEL FAR MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE TO HELP THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I was going to make it my mission to help them all, well I still will, but Im on a different mission at the moment!

 

I totally agree. We should be sorting out the big problems first, before we call in the mind police to judge who is allowed to try to help.

 

Edit: spelling

[ScotsAlan]

I would rate Ghandi as a perfect human. If we had a few more like him about, I honestly believe the world would be a much better place :-)

[midnight]

I would rate Ghandi as a perfect human. If we had a few more like him about, I honestly believe the world would be a much better place :-)

 

Yea I agrea with that scots alan!

 

Just look what that man achieved with his stubben passiveness and refusal to engage in conflics and wars ect!

 

How clever he was!

 

Well cant see any more topics of interest for me on the forums at the moment, but will have a wee wander round just in case!

It wud be nice to see a few more topics other than the usuall stuff on politics ect, as good as they are, but something we cud really get into with sum thought prevoking ideas and great debate!

 

I may reluctatly be forced into posting a new topic!

[Terse]

I would rate Ghandi as a perfect human. If we had a few more like him about, I honestly believe the world would be a much better place :-)

Might I suggest his penchant for sleeping naked with young girls would make him less than suitable for adopting children?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I agree with the first bit. But I don't agree with feeling sorry for people with no belief. Each to their own I say.

But the problem with what Cambon is saying is that he believes in this one God and because millions or even billions believe in this same God then it must be the same one. Which is a pretty stupid conclusion to come to upon recognition of why people believe and where the concept of their God comes from.

 

Recognising the Christianity, Judaaism, and Islam all stems from the same God. For those who are believers of one of these religions, they can be said to be worshipping the same God. But for all others, the God/s or Aliens they worship are different concepts.

 

Now, of the Abrahamic religions, why do so many believe? Simply because the irrational beliefs that underpin them have proliferated. These ideas spread across the globe. But, more importantly, they have been taught to children to ensure that they believe. It says nothing about truth.

 

But to me, the belief in Heaven and Hell, and ones admittance to it by being a believer is a paradox.

Surely, someone who believes will never actually get to heaven....

I believe, but I certainly don't think I will be going "upstairs" after gasping my last breath.

I presume that you don't call yourself a Christian based on these views. You sound uncertain about the idea of heaven and hell.

 

This is what I find curious, because so many people, if not most, do not adhere to Christian teachings but say they believe in some God. Yet, if they are not those who believes in the dognma of Christian teachings then their belief in God would seem likelier to be on even more shaky grounds than the Christian God. Are people just trying to patch together an idea of someone that will make them feel comfortable about the world?

 

But should the couple be allowed to look after kids? Well, I would say yes. After all, Santa and his sleigh is a fairy story. But there are not many parents who don't teach their kids about him :-)

The different here is that Santa is benign. He brings presents and at worst brings soot if you have been naugthty. With God however, it's eternal punishment or torture. Bit of a difference there.

And anyway, I have seen Father Christmas at a grottos across the UK and Isle of Man. And even on telly. I have never seen God.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I totally agree. We should be sorting out the big problems first, before we call in the mind police to judge who is allowed to try to help.

I am not sure whether I agree or disagree with what's going on, because I don't know enough. But this isn't about mind police. If the religious could bear to keep their silly views to themselves then there would be no concerns.

And is this not a big issue? Is a child's welfare not a big issue?

[Evil Goblin]

You rejected or dismissed that aspect of Christian belief. But this does not mean that it is not cruel to introduce a child to it. To introduce a child to such a way of thinking and thus ways of doing that are influenced by the recognition of this place is mental abuse.

I would prefer to say that I reject that interpretation of Christian belief. What passes for Christian Belief is the creation of others than the Christ over the centuries. This is not necessarily what Christ actually taught, which is why I have a great interest in trying to understand the historical Jesus who walked around the Galilee. I do not see the process of introducing a child to the concept of Hell as any more abusive than many of the other concepts which are drummed into youngsters.

 

Then why is there such disagreement on the matter. What of the one unforgiveable sin? Is there disagreement on this?

The disagreements arise from inadequate understanding. I am not sure what you regard as "the one unforgiveable sin" - can you clarify?

 

Curious as to why you ask, as I didn't think you were a theist. Would you prefer I said that it was totally bogus or just false? My choice of language is heavily influenced by my recognition of fact that such absurdities are believed by intelligent people and acted on by such people.

I am not a theist in the normal way of understanding the matter. I asked because you showed great intolerance of the honestly-held beliefs of others - I believe such beliefs deserve some respect, even if I do not share them.

 

I have no reason to believe on the basis of a lack of any evidence. Science is the best tool we have for determining what is true and what is not. But theists have been unable to provide any good evidence.

If you choose not to believe that is your right. Theists believe because of Faith and on that basis see evidence for God where non-believers do not. I suspect much of the confusion arises from misunderstanding (on both sides of the argument)about the roles of science and religion. They address different aspects of the human condition and each answers its own valid area of enquiry.

 

The only sensible position in the absence of good evidence is atheism. Agnosticism, which is knowing with certainly that a God exists or knowing the quality of that God, is another matter.

Your definition of Agnosticism is incorrect - it is simply saying "I do not know if there is a God and if there is, what he/she/it is like". In view of the fact that there is so much that we do not know or understand about the Universe it is irrational to be an atheist. In essence the atheist is claiming to be all-knowing i.e. attributing to themselves the qualities of God. This is essentially the basis of Humanism, which is just a secular version of Christianity.

 

Ah right, so you have to believe to make it true - the poor argument for faith. Right, so, he only manifests to those given by God? And what are these manifestations? If he is not a figment of their imagination then what do they witness as a manifestation of God?

It also demands the question of what reason I would have to believe on the basis of this lack of evidence.

LDV - this only proves my point about your not understanding the power of belief. To put it bluntly, only those who canseewill hear the words of the Christ and understand them and their ability to see comes from their nature (given by God).

 

You don't seem to think I do because you are rendering the word 'existence' to be meaningless, i.e. what's in your head. If I told you that Ye Great Smelly Spirit Pig exists and can be seen in all of his creations etc., would you accept that he must because of my belief that he does?

Of course I wouldn't believe in your Great Smelly Pig. You clearly have no real understanding of religion but are bound by the simplistic concepts which are all too common. And by the way, I claim no great inherent superiority over others in saying this - just that it is a subject that I have studied over the past 30 years.

[Evil Goblin]

No God exists for me, because I have no evidence for his existence. And nobody has provided any.

You might contemplate whether or not belief in a God would improve your life. It is worth remembering that religion does not exist to be served by Man but religion exists to serve Man.

 

In ancient times a people would believe in a God only for so long as that belief was perceived to work for them - once the God started to let them down it was dumped and a new God chosen - until the next time. Religion is (or should be) actually a very pragmatic business and will therefore change with passing time.

[Evil Goblin]

Isn't a committee just a plausible?

Not really, China - the Universe works, which would indicate that a Committee could not have been involved!

Physics is begining to converge around predictive theories which seem to be self consistent and have a universe coming into existence spontaneously.

The problem I have with the coming into existence from literally nothing is that it is beyond comprehension - how can anything emerge from literally nothing (I am not sure we can even imagine "literally" nothing).

 

You can only ever be agnostic to such ideas, but they are just as meaningful as any ideas about Gods creating the universe.

Very true.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I would prefer to say that I reject that interpretation of Christian belief. What passes for Christian Belief is the creation of others than the Christ over the centuries. This is not necessarily what Christ actually taught, which is why I have a great interest in trying to understand the historical Jesus who walked around the Galilee. I do not see the process of introducing a child to the concept of Hell as any more abusive than many of the other concepts which are drummed into youngsters.

Why so much interest when you have only the Bible and parts of other scriptures to rely upon? What you have is some evidence for the existence of a man called Jesus and very little for his divinity. How can your beliefs on the divinity of such a person in the face of such scant evidence?

 

As for hell, I think I might be giving a misleading impression, as I don't know how seriously it is taken by people who call themselves Christian. I know people who are Christian, but they are the sort of Christians who ultimately think that God's this good guy and if they consider themselves to be good people then there isn't any cause for concern. Whereas, I presume for others, and I think it's a very good assumption, that adherence to the Bible and it's moral teachings is crucial in order to satisfy one's God and thus end up in heaven, rather than the other real result of hell. My argument about hell is certainly more aimed at those who take hell seriously.

 

But even so, if I consider the stupid ideas that have entered my mind out and were taken as fact when I was a child, I had the belief in a God, heaven and hell. Just as heaven was considered to exist, so was hell. Fair enough, my (better) moral judgement concluded that hell was far less likely for me because I cannot be really that bad that I'd end up there. But the idea used to spring up in my mind as to the possibilities.

 

Having such contemplation is part of parcel of this mental abuse. This proliferation of the threat of an imaginary place, whoever uncertain it might be who will end up there.

 

The disagreements arise from inadequate understanding. I am not sure what you regard as "the one unforgiveable sin" - can you clarify

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. (I was led to believe, from what little I have read and heard from others). I presume this is a matter for a disagreement, as you say from inadequate understanding. BUT then others would disagree with you, with claims to have understood things just as well.

 

This is the problem, because it is laughable that the Christian God can be taken seriously at all, for those who do believe it exists, when he must surely be guilty of gross stupidity in the poor communication of his message. Anyone with a little bit more thought to planning would have been able to drum up a better way to make sure that his most loved creations could at least have a good ability of sticking to 'right' way. He hasn't done us any favours whatsoever.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Sorry, I know this is a lot to get through.

 

I am not a theist in the normal way of understanding the matter. I asked because you showed great intolerance of the honestly-held beliefs of others - I believe such beliefs deserve some respect, even if I do not share them.

I do think that Christianity should be tolerated in many examples of its role in society. It afforded respect, in fact, all religions are given respect when the deserve none at all. On the basis of the lack of evidence behind their claims, I cannot and nor should anyone offer the beliefs a high opinion. To do that would be to have a high opinion of credulousness. Credulousness should not be praised.

 

I have no reason to believe on the basis of a lack of any evidence. Science is the best tool we have for determining what is true and what is not. But theists have been unable to provide any good evidence.

If you choose not to believe that is your right. Theists believe because of Faith and on that basis see evidence for God where non-believers do not.

It's not a right, no more than not believing in Manx little people, bugganes, Baba Yaga, or Cthulu is a right.

 

Absolutely, theists believe because of Faith. Faith simply means without good reason behind the belief. That's why it is irrational. Aside from this though, they have the belief that something exists because they think it's manifestations are the result of everything or many many things going on in the world and universe. Isn't the oft-used phrase, "Just look at the trees and nature"? This is what I mean, because although they can say that think this is evidence of its manifestation, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny and criticism. Ultimately, they cannot demonstrate that this existence on the basis of evidence. And for that reason there is no good to hold the belief.

 

I suspect much of the confusion arises from misunderstanding (on both sides of the argument)about the roles of science and religion. They address different aspects of the human condition and each answers its own valid area of enquiry.

The role of science is to determine what is true or is not. I am accustomed to the argument that religion opens up another world of importance or equal importance than cannot be ignored, but I would be presumptious to continue without asking you for further explanation of how you see it.

 

Your definition of Agnosticism is incorrect - it is simply saying "I do not know if there is a God and if there is, what he/she/it is like". In view of the fact that there is so much that we do not know or understand about the Universe it is irrational to be an atheist. In essence the atheist is claiming to be all-knowing i.e. attributing to themselves the qualities of God. This is essentially the basis of Humanism, which is just a secular version of Christianity.

Aah, I see. I think you are getting confused about the term 'atheist' and not agnostic.

 

An atheist is something who does not BELIEVE in a God or the existence of Gods. On the basis that no evidence exists, judgement is reserved until that evidence is provided. That is the most sensible and rationa approach to take.

I don't believe that Bastet or Baal or any God exists, because there has is a distinct lack of evidence. It would be foolish to believe that they exist. This atheism is also agnostic atheism. Because it is reserving judgement on the basis of not knowing.

 

However, there is strong atheism. I am, for instance, a strong atheism in respect of the Christian God. That is because the definitions put forth by Christians are so absurd, contradictory, and clearly a product of human thinking that I can say that the Christian God does NOT exist in the same way that fairies or leprechauns don't. This isn't quite gnostic, as I cannot be absolutely certain. But no more or less absolutely certain about pixies or leprechauns. Although people have been said to have seen this creatures.

 

Ah right, so you have to believe to make it true - the poor argument for faith. Right, so, he only manifests to those given by God? And what are these manifestations? If he is not a figment of their imagination then what do they witness as a manifestation of God?

It also demands the question of what reason I would have to believe on the basis of this lack of evidence.

 

LDV - this only proves my point about your not understanding the power of belief. To put it bluntly, only those who canseewill hear the words of the Christ and understand them and their ability to see comes from their nature (given by God).

Your issue with my supposed lack of understanding seems to about you missing the obvious. It is quite obvious that someone who thinks their God can speak to them, influence them, creates their world etc., will recognise that God's role in their life. That would be the same with any God or Gods who have a similar role. BUT it still doesn't make it true. For someone could become convinced of the teachings of Scientology, with its tales of aliens, negative alien spirits inhabiting the body, etc. They might think that such stuff is true, but when taken on faith they have no ability to determine whether it is or not. And more importantly, have no good reason to think it is true on the basis of faith.

 

Of course I wouldn't believe in your Great Smelly Pig. You clearly have no real understanding of religion but are bound by the simplistic concepts which are all too common. And by the way, I claim no great inherent superiority over others in saying this - just that it is a subject that I have studied over the past 30 years.

Really? I am of the opinion that you wish to make a separate case for your religion, presumably because it is your own but also because you think it is a separate matter due to the all-encompassing aspect of your God. I also presume that you think the Great Smelly Pig is a simply concept, but he need not be. I may claim that he created the universe, but decided to end his piggy ways and have no more interference in the processes of the universe. He may just have been a creator Pig. In such a way, why do you suppose a great gulf between your beliefs and this supposed one?

 

All I need to know, all that is needed, is that there is little to no evidence with which to form a rational belief in any God.

 

I recognise that you have studies for thirty years. You may have studies and learned well or badly. More importantly, your theological pursuits and their results - if the result is a belief is God, lends no more weight to your position of belief than an atheist who has far, far less understanding of the Bible or other religions when evidence for such beliefs are needed.