Total Posts:74|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Having Children

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2011 6:35:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
To theists of any denomination - How important is having children to your religion/faith and why do you think that is?

The reason I'm asking is because I went to a religious discussion on God and sex recently, and the topic of procreation came up while discussing homosexuality. Theists typically attribute the immorality of the act to the fact that two people of the same sex cannot reproduce naturally. The connection between fertility and morality has yet to be adequately defended in my opinion. Maybe someone can give a good answer here? Additionally, 1/5 gay couples are raising children but I digress.

Anyway it's pretty obvious that holy books called for procreation to populate the earth, to strengthen the numbers of each denomination (in case of war, attack, etc.). In that case do you think a legitimate moral case can be made in terms of child rearing? I've come across several Christian websites openly condemning those who willingly choose to not have children. Religious people on balance are likely to have more children compared to the non-religious. Interestingly enough, research shows that the more educated an individual is, the less likely they are to have children ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ).
President of DDO
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 3:16:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/28/2011 6:35:44 PM, theLwerd wrote:
To theists of any denomination - How important is having children to your religion/faith and why do you think that is?

The reason I'm asking is because I went to a religious discussion on God and sex recently, and the topic of procreation came up while discussing homosexuality. Theists typically attribute the immorality of the act to the fact that two people of the same sex cannot reproduce naturally. The connection between fertility and morality has yet to be adequately defended in my opinion. Maybe someone can give a good answer here? Additionally, 1/5 gay couples are raising children but I digress.

Anyway it's pretty obvious that holy books called for procreation to populate the earth, to strengthen the numbers of each denomination (in case of war, attack, etc.). In that case do you think a legitimate moral case can be made in terms of child rearing? I've come across several Christian websites openly condemning those who willingly choose to not have children. Religious people on balance are likely to have more children compared to the non-religious. Interestingly enough, research shows that the more educated an individual is, the less likely they are to have children ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ).

It varies greatly among Faiths/denominations.

To me sex is two fold. ON one hand you have a wonderful and awesome gift. On the other you have an equally important responsibility.

The pleasure is obvious.

The responsibility is less obvious. For most theists sex is a designed characteristic of our very being. Sex has a known result. Being designed his way we can do nothing but go against the designer when we hamper the natural course. I might disagree with this if we had to "turn on" or "switch" something in our being to make childbirth possible. Since it isn't I see no other reason why I can assume we were not intend to reproduce. The only willful decision we seem to have is not partake in the act if we don't want the second part of the deal.

That leads me to the moral situation for me at least. Since sex is a twofold situation one can not be had without the other, according to design. If you wish to avoid one aspect then on can only avoid the entire act, morally. I think this has more to do with tempering our character, which is generally a beneficial endeavor. To think otherwise is like expecting a good well paying job without also accepting the many hard hours of hard work to achieve this goal. There are ways to achieve wealth without hard work and sacrifice but I doubt there are many ways to achieve this without trampling on someone in the process. So a little sacrifice can be a good thing, to those that have put away childish things.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 9:20:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
How can you have kids if you don't believe in an afterlife? Tell me you reasons.
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 2:55:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 9:20:14 AM, tyler90az wrote:
How can you have kids if you don't believe in an afterlife? Tell me you reasons.

lol.. umm.. if you would enjoy having children..
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 2:56:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 2:55:43 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/29/2011 9:20:14 AM, tyler90az wrote:
How can you have kids if you don't believe in an afterlife? Tell me you reasons.

lol.. umm.. if you would enjoy having children..

what's the afterlife have to do with it???
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 3:23:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 2:56:08 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/29/2011 2:55:43 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/29/2011 9:20:14 AM, tyler90az wrote:
How can you have kids if you don't believe in an afterlife? Tell me you reasons.

lol.. umm.. if you would enjoy having children..

what's the afterlife have to do with it???

Is it fair to the children? They will just die eventually...
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
HatedeatH
Posts: 386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 3:24:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 3:23:31 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 1/29/2011 2:56:08 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/29/2011 2:55:43 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/29/2011 9:20:14 AM, tyler90az wrote:
How can you have kids if you don't believe in an afterlife? Tell me you reasons.

lol.. umm.. if you would enjoy having children..

what's the afterlife have to do with it???

Is it fair to the children? They will just die eventually...

your point?

Everybody dies eventually.
vardas0antras: If Muhammad is great then why didn't he stop 911 ?
gavin.ogden: He was too busy starting it.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 3:38:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
In ancient times in Judaism it was needed for numbers to stay large, in case of attack so that the numbers of the chosen people, or the village, or even just a family line, would not cease.
It was called for every couple to have at least two children that way they will at least give back as much as they took, but having more was encouraged.
The only form of BC that is really condemned are condoms or anything else which kills sperm like that (the logic I really don't know. Pretty sure the sperm die anyway if its 'wasted' but I'm just giving the facts)

Now days its not as important because war is not as common as it once was, and the threat is no longer there. Conservative and Reform Jew sects are actually pretty involved with the LGBT community and pressing for equal rights, however most do not allow synagogue sponsored same sex marriage (some do but most don't)

I only note this because paired with that knowledge I really don't understand the conservative christian.

So yes L, your line of thought was correct but my religion does not have the same errors as you tend to think of when you think religion.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 3:40:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 3:24:21 PM, HatedeatH wrote:
At 1/29/2011 3:23:31 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 1/29/2011 2:56:08 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/29/2011 2:55:43 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/29/2011 9:20:14 AM, tyler90az wrote:
How can you have kids if you don't believe in an afterlife? Tell me you reasons.

lol.. umm.. if you would enjoy having children..

what's the afterlife have to do with it???

Is it fair to the children? They will just die eventually...

your point?

Everybody dies eventually.

This.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 3:41:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/28/2011 6:35:44 PM, theLwerd wrote:
To theists of any denomination - How important is having children to your religion/faith and why do you think that is?

The reason I'm asking is because I went to a religious discussion on God and sex recently, and the topic of procreation came up while discussing homosexuality. Theists typically attribute the immorality of the act to the fact that two people of the same sex cannot reproduce naturally. The connection between fertility and morality has yet to be adequately defended in my opinion. Maybe someone can give a good answer here? Additionally, 1/5 gay couples are raising children but I digress.

Anyway it's pretty obvious that holy books called for procreation to populate the earth, to strengthen the numbers of each denomination (in case of war, attack, etc.). In that case do you think a legitimate moral case can be made in terms of child rearing? I've come across several Christian websites openly condemning those who willingly choose to not have children. Religious people on balance are likely to have more children compared to the non-religious. Interestingly enough, research shows that the more educated an individual is, the less likely they are to have children ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ).
From an Islamic point of view, having children is a great honor because by God's Will, you raise a child and teach him manners, religion, etc., which can help contributing positively to e.g., a society. The more children you have, the more chances you have of increasing your record of good deeds because you educate them (and they continue the good work etc.), and it continues that way.

As for the point about homosexuals and reproduction, I don't use this as my main argument, but yes, it is part of it. I don't believe in the traditional adoption, and having kids is a big part of marriage, which I think is very important for relationships.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 3:46:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 3:23:31 PM, tyler90az wrote:
At 1/29/2011 2:56:08 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/29/2011 2:55:43 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/29/2011 9:20:14 AM, tyler90az wrote:
How can you have kids if you don't believe in an afterlife? Tell me you reasons.

lol.. umm.. if you would enjoy having children..

what's the afterlife have to do with it???

Is it fair to the children? They will just die eventually...

lol, I enjoy my life.. regardless that I'll die eventually 8)

lol... it's actually kind of hilarious how people cling to absolutes in order to delude themselves from having to deal with their own Pessimistic Nihilism

they jump from one ridiculous extreme to the next!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 3:47:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 3:38:06 PM, lovelife wrote:
In ancient times in Judaism it was needed for numbers to stay large, in case of attack so that the numbers of the chosen people, or the village, or even just a family line, would not cease.
It was called for every couple to have at least two children that way they will at least give back as much as they took, but having more was encouraged.
The only form of BC that is really condemned are condoms or anything else which kills sperm like that (the logic I really don't know. Pretty sure the sperm die anyway if its 'wasted' but I'm just giving the facts)


Now days its not as important because war is not as common as it once was, and the threat is no longer there. Conservative and Reform Jew sects are actually pretty involved with the LGBT community and pressing for equal rights, however most do not allow synagogue sponsored same sex marriage (some do but most don't)

I only note this because paired with that knowledge I really don't understand the conservative christian.

So yes L, your line of thought was correct but my religion does not have the same errors as you tend to think of when you think religion.

why have you become Jewish???

I don't get it?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 3:50:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 3:41:27 PM, Mirza wrote:
From an Islamic point of view, having children is a great honor because by God's Will, you raise a child and teach him manners, religion, etc., which can help contributing positively to e.g., a society. The more children you have, the more chances you have of increasing your record of good deeds because you educate them (and they continue the good work etc.), and it continues that way.

That makes sense. But is it a bad thing if some couples choose not to reproduce?

As for the point about homosexuals and reproduction, I don't use this as my main argument, but yes, it is part of it.

I'm not surprised considering it's a fallacious argument. "This behaviour is natural; therefore, this behaviour is morally acceptable" is a blatant appeal to nature fallacy... but I digress. Pfft. Who needs logic anyway :)
President of DDO
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 3:56:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 3:50:01 PM, theLwerd wrote:
That makes sense. But is it a bad thing if some couples choose not to reproduce?
Since marriage is not obligatory, having children cannot be obligatory either, because some people marry due to necessities, which can be to solve their problems, and making reproduction obligatory would bring issues to many couples, who could perhaps not deal with children during marriage at all. Another thing is about when to have kids, and other things which would make everything complicated and eventually distorted, hence reproduction is not obligatory, nor is marriage.

I'm not surprised considering it's a fallacious argument. "This behaviour is natural; therefore, this behaviour is morally acceptable" is a blatant appeal to nature fallacy... but I digress. Pfft. Who needs logic anyway :)
I responded to your point of adoption. I don't believe in traditional adoption, i.e., non-biological kids becoming real children of some strangers.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 4:19:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 3:47:11 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/29/2011 3:38:06 PM, lovelife wrote:
In ancient times in Judaism it was needed for numbers to stay large, in case of attack so that the numbers of the chosen people, or the village, or even just a family line, would not cease.
It was called for every couple to have at least two children that way they will at least give back as much as they took, but having more was encouraged.
The only form of BC that is really condemned are condoms or anything else which kills sperm like that (the logic I really don't know. Pretty sure the sperm die anyway if its 'wasted' but I'm just giving the facts)


Now days its not as important because war is not as common as it once was, and the threat is no longer there. Conservative and Reform Jew sects are actually pretty involved with the LGBT community and pressing for equal rights, however most do not allow synagogue sponsored same sex marriage (some do but most don't)

I only note this because paired with that knowledge I really don't understand the conservative christian.

So yes L, your line of thought was correct but my religion does not have the same errors as you tend to think of when you think religion.

why have you become Jewish???

I don't get it?

Well a few years back I felt like I was jewish and I thought about it for a few months. My bf is a fan of hitler so I was like "meh can't prove any god anyway so whatevs no fights"
then FREEDO put a challenge and the first one was jew for a week, and I really liked it and I don't want to move onto week two. Actually this is my 8th day being a jew and I still feel more like myself then before so I'm pretty sure I am jewish :D

And it actually does go with many of my beliefs. If I was raised as a reform jew, or a jew of any kind, I doubt I would have even had an atheist phase, or anything like that. In fact I doubt I ever would have been depressed.

I could go into more detail but would rather not derail
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 4:27:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 3:56:16 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 1/29/2011 3:50:01 PM, theLwerd wrote:
That makes sense. But is it a bad thing if some couples choose not to reproduce?
Since marriage is not obligatory, having children cannot be obligatory either, because some people marry due to necessities, which can be to solve their problems, and making reproduction obligatory would bring issues to many couples, who could perhaps not deal with children during marriage at all. Another thing is about when to have kids, and other things which would make everything complicated and eventually distorted, hence reproduction is not obligatory, nor is marriage.

I'm not surprised considering it's a fallacious argument. "This behaviour is natural; therefore, this behaviour is morally acceptable" is a blatant appeal to nature fallacy... but I digress. Pfft. Who needs logic anyway :)
I responded to your point of adoption. I don't believe in traditional adoption, i.e., non-biological kids becoming real children of some strangers.

Sorry way off topic, but would you happen to know if thats what INH could be thinking of by saying your against adoption?
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 4:32:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 4:27:45 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 1/29/2011 3:56:16 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 1/29/2011 3:50:01 PM, theLwerd wrote:
That makes sense. But is it a bad thing if some couples choose not to reproduce?
Since marriage is not obligatory, having children cannot be obligatory either, because some people marry due to necessities, which can be to solve their problems, and making reproduction obligatory would bring issues to many couples, who could perhaps not deal with children during marriage at all. Another thing is about when to have kids, and other things which would make everything complicated and eventually distorted, hence reproduction is not obligatory, nor is marriage.

I'm not surprised considering it's a fallacious argument. "This behaviour is natural; therefore, this behaviour is morally acceptable" is a blatant appeal to nature fallacy... but I digress. Pfft. Who needs logic anyway :)
I responded to your point of adoption. I don't believe in traditional adoption, i.e., non-biological kids becoming real children of some strangers.

Sorry way off topic, but would you happen to know if thats what INH could be thinking of by saying your against adoption?
I believe she knows. I do not think that it is wrong for parents to let some so-called guardians help raising their children, but labeling anyone else as parents is not favored. On top of that, the rights of the guardians toward the children would not be the same as the rights of the parents. It should be in times of difficulties, when parents have very hard situations and cannot raise their children properly. But adoption overseas where children never meet their real parents, I find that to be very bad. I know that outcomes can be positive, but they can also be negative, and the morality is still broken.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 4:33:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 4:19:46 PM, lovelife wrote:
Actually this is my 8th day being a jew and I still feel more like myself then before so I'm pretty sure I am jewish :D And it actually does go with many of my beliefs.

Le sigh. I wish you were joking.
President of DDO
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 4:44:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I believe she knows. I do not think that it is wrong for parents to let some so-called guardians help raising their children, but labeling anyone else as parents is not favored. On top of that, the rights of the guardians toward the children would not be the same as the rights of the parents. It should be in times of difficulties, when parents have very hard situations and cannot raise their children properly. But adoption overseas where children never meet their real parents, I find that to be very bad. I know that outcomes can be positive, but they can also be negative, and the morality is still broken.:

Sometimes biological parents die in tragic accidents, or are horribly abusive. Is there ever a circumstance where adoption is a better option, in your opinion?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 4:48:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 4:44:15 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I believe she knows. I do not think that it is wrong for parents to let some so-called guardians help raising their children, but labeling anyone else as parents is not favored. On top of that, the rights of the guardians toward the children would not be the same as the rights of the parents. It should be in times of difficulties, when parents have very hard situations and cannot raise their children properly. But adoption overseas where children never meet their real parents, I find that to be very bad. I know that outcomes can be positive, but they can also be negative, and the morality is still broken.:

Sometimes biological parents die in tragic accidents, or are horribly abusive. Is there ever a circumstance where adoption is a better option, in your opinion?
Yes, in cases of necessity (such as the scenario you pointed out), I think adoption is fine. However, there is the option of raising by other blood-relatives. If that is not possible, then children can be taken care of by other people under legal guardianship. However, the guardians are still not "parents." They are honored and respected, but they are not "parents." On top of that, some rules between non-relative relationships still apply. E.g., a male guardian should not be alone with the child he raises if the child is a female and has reached puberty. That is because they are not related to each other by lineage.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 4:50:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I leave for 2 virtually weeks and so much ** happens.

Anyway, to answer the question. If I remember correctly, both Yahweh and Jesus ordered mankind to bread, a lot. However, to be honest I don't think theists have children because of religious imperative. I believe that they chose to have children for the same reason many irreligious or passively religious people do: to leave THEIR offspring, their mark on the world, a need to care and a need to be cared for in return.

As for me personally, meh. I have a strong cultural imperative to do so. The lack of marriage or offspring is a disgrace. - lol Africians.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 4:54:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I also want to point out that the child must, under Islamic viewpoints, keep the name of his/her father, so by "legal guardianship," I am not referring to the traditional adoption regardless.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 4:59:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yes, in cases of necessity (such as the scenario you pointed out), I think adoption is fine. However, there is the option of raising by other blood-relatives. If that is not possible, then children can be taken care of by other people under legal guardianship. However, the guardians are still not "parents." They are honored and respected, but they are not "parents.":

So being a sperm donor makes you a parent over someone who's been there raising a child from day one? That doesn't make any sense.

On top of that, some rules between non-relative relationships still apply. E.g., a male guardian should not be alone with the child he raises if the child is a female and has reached puberty. That is because they are not related to each other by lineage.:

What? What does lineage have to do with anything?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 4:59:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 9:20:14 AM, tyler90az wrote:
How can you have kids if you don't believe in an afterlife? Tell me you reasons.

Actually, as an atheist, this does bother me. But what bothers me worse is the idea of bringing children into a world that is overpopulated, that has children needing adoption, that has resources that could be distributed elsewhere, that will likely suffer, etc. However as a human, like all humans I am affected by desires rooted in evolution--to have children, to see my species never fade away, etc. Atheists are affected just as much by these biological drives as are the religious, and both never really think them out.

It's simply a drive that gets indulged, like desiring entertainment or comfort. The masses, religious or not (most of which are religious), don't think about why they want children. It just happens. To shake your finger at atheists for doing just as little thinking about the problem as theists is dishonest and petty. Worse, many religious also believe not only in Heaven, but in a Hell. Most probably believe in a good chance of their child going to Hell. If you shake your finger at atheists bringing a child into the world with no afterlife, what does that say about theists knowingly condemning their children to an eternity of suffering and torture?

But I guess that never occurs to the religious types who have babies for Jesus.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 5:10:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 4:33:49 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 1/29/2011 4:19:46 PM, lovelife wrote:
Actually this is my 8th day being a jew and I still feel more like myself then before so I'm pretty sure I am jewish :D And it actually does go with many of my beliefs.

Le sigh. I wish you were joking.

?
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 5:11:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 5:10:05 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 1/29/2011 4:33:49 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 1/29/2011 4:19:46 PM, lovelife wrote:
Actually this is my 8th day being a jew and I still feel more like myself then before so I'm pretty sure I am jewish :D And it actually does go with many of my beliefs.

Le sigh. I wish you were joking.

?

I'm guessing she's facepalming over your flippancy and high school-like maturity towards religious beliefs.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 5:15:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 5:11:10 PM, Yvette wrote:
At 1/29/2011 5:10:05 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 1/29/2011 4:33:49 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 1/29/2011 4:19:46 PM, lovelife wrote:
Actually this is my 8th day being a jew and I still feel more like myself then before so I'm pretty sure I am jewish :D And it actually does go with many of my beliefs.

Le sigh. I wish you were joking.

?

I'm guessing she's facepalming over your flippancy and high school-like maturity towards religious beliefs.

eh maybe, but I already was interested in it before kinda let it fade out and now that I did real research on it it seems really accurate for me. I'm not saying anything 100% at this point but there is a good chance.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 5:17:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 4:48:06 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 1/29/2011 4:44:15 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I believe she knows. I do not think that it is wrong for parents to let some so-called guardians help raising their children, but labeling anyone else as parents is not favored. On top of that, the rights of the guardians toward the children would not be the same as the rights of the parents. It should be in times of difficulties, when parents have very hard situations and cannot raise their children properly. But adoption overseas where children never meet their real parents, I find that to be very bad. I know that outcomes can be positive, but they can also be negative, and the morality is still broken.:

Sometimes biological parents die in tragic accidents, or are horribly abusive. Is there ever a circumstance where adoption is a better option, in your opinion?
Yes, in cases of necessity (such as the scenario you pointed out), I think adoption is fine. However, there is the option of raising by other blood-relatives. If that is not possible, then children can be taken care of by other people under legal guardianship. However, the guardians are still not "parents." They are honored and respected, but they are not "parents." On top of that, some rules between non-relative relationships still apply. E.g., a male guardian should not be alone with the child he raises if the child is a female and has reached puberty. That is because they are not related to each other by lineage.

Why does blood relation matter so much to you, as opposed to how the child feels? The relationship between a child and parent is more than biological, it's chemical and biological reactions that produce emotions of love/etc. If they feel that, who are you to slap them on the hand and say, "No! Guardian! Blood relation trumps all!"

I swear, people who care overly much about blood relation make no sense at all.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2011 5:18:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/29/2011 5:11:10 PM, Yvette wrote:
I'm guessing she's facepalming over your flippancy and high school-like maturity towards religious beliefs.

That's an insult to high schoolers :P