Thread: Qualifications for parents

Originally Posted by frank47

Has anyone entertained the thought that the nihilism that pervades our society today unlike 50 years ago can be contributing to many of the problems that currently exist? I see kids today walking around malls, leaving schools, etc. and MOST of them look like no one is home between their ears. This was not the case 50 years ago. I think something very fundamental is going on below the surface. Any thoughts?

Sad but true. I think that many of those who are parents today have maybe been raised without role models (if at all) so they simply do not know how to raise their kids. Or they are too deep in their own career/hobbies/social life whatever that they do not have time to spend with their kids. Pure egoism or even hedonism plays is a large part in a lives of some people today. A pessimist in me says that it is going to get worse when the kids, who were "raised" by those parents, grow up some day.
Another issue is that our society puts much more pressure on people today than it did some 50 years ago. People get tired, spent much more time away from home and kids.

Then again old timers like me have always thought that kids are growing wrong. Hope my mumble is just that

Originally Posted by bbshriver

No, it was a judge, not an adoption agency.

Still fine by me. Families that are adopting must show that they aren't bigoted. Like I said earlier, I wouldn't want racists to be adopting either.

Originally Posted by bbshriver

I'll have to get back to you on that one.

Though I do know specifically on the shellfish issue, there are several passages in the New Testament regarding the new covenant, which eliminates this "rule". What I'm actually curious about is if anything else is discussed regarding homosexuality in the "new covenant"

And polygamy, while practiced by Biblical figures was never actually condoned.

Matthew 5:17-20 perhaps?

Originally Posted by Sailor

Sad but true. I think that many of those who are parents today have maybe been raised without role models (if at all) so they simply do not know how to raise their kids. Or they are too deep in their own career/hobbies/social life whatever that they do not have time to spend with their kids. Pure egoism or even hedonism plays is a large part in a lives of some people today. A pessimist in me says that it is going to get worse when the kids, who were "raised" by those parents, grow up some day.
Another issue is that our society puts much more pressure on people today than it did some 50 years ago. People get tired, spent much more time away from home and kids.

Then again old timers like me have always thought that kids are growing wrong. Hope my mumble is just that

I dont' think its a lack of roll models, but that TV and movie stars are the new role models. In our culture, famous > goodness. So kids these days are shown the obnoxious and absurd getting the attention (and often praise) and naturally follow suit.

Originally Posted by markevens

Still fine by me. Families that are adopting must show that they aren't bigoted. Like I said earlier, I wouldn't want racists to be adopting either.


Matthew 5:17-20 perhaps?

Regarding the law

Romans 3:20 - PassageÂLookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

Romans 7:1-6 - PassageÂLookup - New King James Version - BibleGateway.com

Luke 16:16 - PassageÂLookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

Hebrews 8 - PassageÂLookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

Galatians 4:1-7 - PassageÂLookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

Regarding the comment of being bigoted..
What about people who will only buy American (or Japanese, or German) cars? Or people who only shave with a straight razor? Or people who refuse to wear shorts in the summer? Where do you draw the line?

Also, unless that article has mis-quoted, the judge specifically said they would "have to teach the children that homosexuality was ok", which implies an activity on their part in the teaching.

The judge did not say they had to accept the child's choice/action. He didn't ask if they would be able to love the child just the same no matter what. He asked if they would be able to actively teach the child that it was ok.

Originally Posted by markevens

I dont' think its a lack of roll models, but that TV and movie stars are the new role models. In our culture, famous > goodness. So kids these days are shown the obnoxious and absurd getting the attention (and often praise) and naturally follow suit.

And what do you suppose has caused this?

Originally Posted by bbshriver

Regarding the law

Romans 3:20 - Passage*Lookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

Romans 7:1-6 - Passage*Lookup - New King James Version - BibleGateway.com

Luke 16:16 - Passage*Lookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

Hebrews 8 - Passage*Lookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

Galatians 4:1-7 - Passage*Lookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com

Great! Since you now declared the Old Testament obsolete, you can stop hating on homosexuals, because that is where the passages regarding homosexuality come from.

Regarding the comment of being bigoted..
What about people who will only buy American (or Japanese, or German) cars? Or people who only shave with a straight razor? Or people who refuse to wear shorts in the summer? Where do you draw the line?

I think there is a clear line between making judgments about the quality of inanimate objects and labeling people you don't even know.

Also, unless that article has mis-quoted, the judge specifically said they would "have to teach the children that homosexuality was ok", which implies an activity on their part in the teaching.

The judge did not say they had to accept the child's choice/action. He didn't ask if they would be able to love the child just the same no matter what. He asked if they would be able to actively teach the child that it was ok.

I still have don't see the problem with this. So they dont' want to send foster kids into families that will teach hate. If their narrow minded religion orders them to condemn homosexuals, and they follow along, that is fine. That doesn't mean they society needs to bend to their views.

Originally Posted by bbshriver

And what do you suppose has caused this?

Nobody seems to be happy with peace and quiet. This has come out of TV and the consumer culture that developed from it.

Originally Posted by bbshriver

Honestly, this confuses the heck out of me. By extension of your statement, we should outlaw parochial schools, Sunday school programs, children's church, and in fact the Roman Catholic church itself. If/when you are married Roman Catholic you have to promise to "the best of your ability" to raise your children in the church.

I'll simplify then; A religion that has no tolerance is just plain wrong.

The christian church is also responsible for covering up cases of child abuse inflicted by preists and brothers, some of which occured becaue of their access to kids at sunday school, so hypocritical also comes to mind.



In many Christian denominations, children are baptized/dedicated as infants, and basically all have child specific programs (Sunday school, youth group, children's church, etc)

So basically, they're just trying to remove the free choice from the child. The freedom to choose their own spiritual path, yes?!

Also, based on your comments I'm assuming you're "non-religious", but say the parents choose to go to church on Sunday morning... what do you propose they do with their child/children? hire a sitter? Certainly taking them to church with them must be "shoving it down their throat".

Your assumtion is wrong, I'm just not a believer in a 2000 year old story that has been re-translated and re-written numourous times and even been changed to suit the powers that be at the time (King James for example). I believe in offering choice. To teach one religion and say that it is the one and only right path is wrong. There are many paths that lead to the same place. The path that is right for you is not necessarily right for me. So teach kids about many religions and not only might they learn tolerance, they might also find the path that is right for them. I've had christianity and roman catholisism shoved down my throat as a child, so I'm speaking from personal experience.




If you were a Christian, or a 100% devotee to any religion, you would have to consider that according to your belief, a lack of spirituality in your children would be far worse in the long term than the physical needs you're talking about.

I am devoted to my belief 100%, but my belief is not necessarily right for my children, and no, I don't think a lack of spirituality will be harmful to them. If they choose atheism, then that is their belief...Their religion of choice.

If you believe whole-heartedly in Heaven and Hell, wouldn't you do everything you could to ensure your children end up in the former, and avoid the latter?

Heaven and Hell...Sorry I don't believe either exist in as much as you think of them existing. Too complex to go into here and not really the point of discussion


Keep in mind... most religions profess to be the ONLY way. If you believe Jesus Christ is the only way, then that belief is just as important for a child (moreso in fact) than feeding, housing, and clothing them.

Yes. A shame really too. Since feeding, clothing and housing them are far more important than relying on some ethereal force to provide for you is just plain silly...People forget the part that says "the lord helps those who help themselves"...Just another case of the contradiction that is the bible.



While I don't disagree with your assertation, in an age where I read 1 in 10 children are "sexually active" before their 13th birthday, how do you propose teaching these classes? That number is from US News about 9-10 years ago.

A sadly failed attempt at parenting...Perhaps the chosen method wasn't the right one for the child or pehaps the parents were just bad at their job or didn't care. Who can say.

Would a parent that teaches their children no religion be just as wrong as one who teaches their child only the religion that they practice?

Originally Posted by HNSB

Would a parent that teaches their children no religion be just as wrong as one who teaches their child only the religion that they practice?

For me, it isn't whether a parent teaches a kid their religion (which I think all religious parents will, and its not necessarily a bad thing) but whether or not they allow their child to doubt and question, and particularly whether or not they instill open-mindedness or close-mindedness.

MickR, just to know where you are coming from and where your bounds are, what if one of your kids decides to be a Roman Catholic priest or nun. What would you do?