Homelessness question?

[Scarletprayers]

There is more to providing for a child than just food and shelter. There's a reason that two men or two women cannot produce a child biologically on their own. God has a design and an order, it's there for a reason. What I've noticed is that the majority of the views here have been expressed through the lens of pragmatism, fueled by an emotional appeal. It's admirable to want to address the needs of a child, or anyone in need. However, we should never let our compassion and emotions bring us to conclusions which are contrary to God's design.

Sorry honey, hate to have to disagree with you, but I do on this one. Jesus himself said that mercy was more important than sacrifice, so taking care of a child that can not take care of itself, regardless of who it is, would I believe be more important in this instance.

[Floatingaxe]

There is more to providing for a child than just food and shelter. There's a reason that two men or two women cannot produce a child biologically on their own. God has a design and an order, it's there for a reason. What I've noticed is that the majority of the views here have been expressed through the lens of pragmatism, fueled by an emotional appeal. It's admirable to want to address the needs of a child, or anyone in need. However, we should never let our compassion and emotions bring us to conclusions which are contrary to God's design.

Sorry honey, hate to have to disagree with you, but I do on this one. Jesus himself said that mercy was more important than sacrifice, so taking care of a child that can not take care of itself, regardless of who it is, would I believe be more important in this instance.

I wonder why God would be in favour of placing a child in the home of a gay couple? I think that is not right. God would never do it. so...we must conclude that people are doing what seems right in their own eyes---which is evil.

Proverbs 14:12

There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.

[Scarletprayers]

There is more to providing for a child than just food and shelter. There's a reason that two men or two women cannot produce a child biologically on their own. God has a design and an order, it's there for a reason. What I've noticed is that the majority of the views here have been expressed through the lens of pragmatism, fueled by an emotional appeal. It's admirable to want to address the needs of a child, or anyone in need. However, we should never let our compassion and emotions bring us to conclusions which are contrary to God's design.

Sorry honey, hate to have to disagree with you, but I do on this one. Jesus himself said that mercy was more important than sacrifice, so taking care of a child that can not take care of itself, regardless of who it is, would I believe be more important in this instance.

I wonder why God would be in favour of placing a child in the home of a gay couple? I think that is not right. God would never do it. so...we must conclude that people are doing what seems right in their own eyes---which is evil.

Proverbs 14:12

There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.

God lets gay women get pregnant, hummmm wonder why, God lets drug addicts and child abusers have children, if He doesn't allow it, why does it happen? According to you, God would never do it, but HE DOES. To be honest, I wont answer you on this any further, I don't read your post, as well as a few others on here, for some reason I decided to open this one up and read it, and once again, no compassion.

[Iryssa]

There is more to providing for a child than just food and shelter. There's a reason that two men or two women cannot produce a child biologically on their own. God has a design and an order, it's there for a reason. What I've noticed is that the majority of the views here have been expressed through the lens of pragmatism, fueled by an emotional appeal. It's admirable to want to address the needs of a child, or anyone in need. However, we should never let our compassion and emotions bring us to conclusions which are contrary to God's design.

Sorry honey, hate to have to disagree with you, but I do on this one. Jesus himself said that mercy was more important than sacrifice, so taking care of a child that can not take care of itself, regardless of who it is, would I believe be more important in this instance.

I wonder why God would be in favour of placing a child in the home of a gay couple? I think that is not right. God would never do it. so...we must conclude that people are doing what seems right in their own eyes---which is evil.

Proverbs 14:12

There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.

Oh yes...and leaving the kid on the street to prostitute herself or get raped is SO much better.

[sotphmfm]

Whoa we are all sinners

what is the difference between the sin of a liar

or the sin of a murderer

or the sin of a homosexual

or the sin of an idolizer

it's all sin

and all is the same in Gods eyes

In other words no sin is greater than another

Yes we would all prefer these children be adopted by God fearing loving people rather than non christians.

But, the truth of the matter is saved or not we are all sinners. Some of us are saved and some of us aren't.

And there aren't enough christians willing to adopt. And there are too many that turn there backs. (I'm talking about christians that can afford, do have time, and are healthy enough)

I apologize if I come accross to strong, this is just one of those subjects that can get me riled.

Love to all

[Guest lnj]

I'm currently writing an assignment for my theology diploma and one of the concerns is homelessness. I led a house group to get a thick description or a wider perspective then my own. A member read out a poem about a little homeless girl who survived by eating out of rubbish bins and huddling by a viaduct to keep warm.

I asked one of the guys if he thinks a gay/lesbian couple ought to be able to adopt her to get her off the streets and he said an emphatic no.

I answered that if enough Christian couples were adopting homeless children then he may have a valid point but obviously they arn't!

He isn't the only Christian I know with this opinion, how widespread is it?

I'm wondering why I sometimes find the views of Christians so shocking when I am one!

I'm also finding that the more I study theology the more I have to keep my mough when speaking with Christians because many are so highly strung that they fly off on a tangent if I suggest anything that they don't agree with.

I'm pretty sure there would be other alternatives if this is the US we are talking about

.

The most richest, powerful Nation on this Planet Earth allowing little girls to go hungry and homeless.

You imagine that in a 3rd World country.

Even in Aus there are countless"Homeless" people while Believers eat 3 square meals a day ..and some. I'm included in this.

Basic Human Rights is so overlooked because of the mighty dollar.

[Emily~Anne]

There is more to providing for a child than just food and shelter. There's a reason that two men or two women cannot produce a child biologically on their own. God has a design and an order, it's there for a reason. What I've noticed is that the majority of the views here have been expressed through the lens of pragmatism, fueled by an emotional appeal. It's admirable to want to address the needs of a child, or anyone in need. However, we should never let our compassion and emotions bring us to conclusions which are contrary to God's design.

Sorry honey, hate to have to disagree with you, but I do on this one. Jesus himself said that mercy was more important than sacrifice, so taking care of a child that can not take care of itself, regardless of who it is, would I believe be more important in this instance.

I wonder why God would be in favour of placing a child in the home of a gay couple? I think that is not right. God would never do it. so...we must conclude that people are doing what seems right in their own eyes---which is evil.

Proverbs 14:12

There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.

God lets gay women get pregnant, hummmm wonder why, God lets drug addicts and child abusers have children, if He doesn't allow it, why does it happen? According to you, God would never do it, but HE DOES. To be honest, I wont answer you on this any further, I don't read your post, as well as a few others on here, for some reason I decided to open this one up and read it, and once again, no compassion.

I'm not sure I get your point Silentprayer, are you saying that drug addicts and child abusers should also be able to adopt homeless children? I am all in favor of homosexuals fostering a homeless child only as a very last resort. The dangers of the streets is just too high. But adoption? No, my response on that would be the same as Kabowd's, it is just flat out against God's design. I think it is unwise to deliberately choose to go against God's design. Would you say God lacks compassion Silentprayer? By the way, do we have homeless little children in the US or Canada? I know there are some in other countries, but I don't think here. Our focus needs to be on making it easier for Christian families to adopt these children, I know of many families who want to, but the barriers are so high. Kabowd, how awesome that you desire to adopt someday!

[Kabowd]

There is more to providing for a child than just food and shelter. There's a reason that two men or two women cannot produce a child biologically on their own. God has a design and an order, it's there for a reason. What I've noticed is that the majority of the views here have been expressed through the lens of pragmatism, fueled by an emotional appeal. It's admirable to want to address the needs of a child, or anyone in need. However, we should never let our compassion and emotions bring us to conclusions which are contrary to God's design.

Sorry honey, hate to have to disagree with you, but I do on this one. Jesus himself said that mercy was more important than sacrifice, so taking care of a child that can not take care of itself, regardless of who it is, would I believe be more important in this instance.

Don't worry, it's okay if you disagree with me. You're one of the few people who knows how to disagree with someone while still showing respect for their beliefs. So I won't take it personally

On the issue, however, you and I can both agree that compassion is an extremely high priority. Even the verse you listed reinforces the concept that God desires that we show mercy and compassion for one another. But what we have to remember, is that the context of this exhortation (in every instance) refers to the way God expects believers to behave and respond to humanity. Even in Hosea (where the quote originates), it's in reference to the fact that God desires true love (for Himself) rather than empty expressions of "love" that people perceived as "sacrificial". The book of Hosea reveals the true meaning of compassion and sacrificial love (in the example of the relationship between Hosea and Gomer). So how does that relate to this issue? It means that believers such as ourselves should be actively seeking ways to bring God's love and redemption to our culture, in sacrificial ways. Yes, that means through mercy and compassion towards those less fortunate. It means that Christians as individuals (privately) should be giving time, money, resources to benefit others and it also means that Christians corporately (as in churches) should be giving as well.

God cares tremendously about the plight of the human race. Not only for our "spiritual" needs, but also for our physical well-being. However, I believe the problem addressed in this topic (homeless child on the streets vs. gay couple adoption) presents a false dilemma. Opening adoptions to gay couples does not and will not solve the problem of children suffering. Instead, it would open a child up to an entirely different kind of suffering....the kind presented in Romans 1. Remember, a gay couple will be living their lives in open rebellion towards God. They reject God's inherent design for the family unit. This is not the best environment for a child to grow up in. It's not even a "good" option. Of course when it's presented as "well would you rather have them on the street?" it's posed as the ONLY option...and that is just blatantly (and statistically) false.

This is why I said earlier that we need to remove our emotions, as well as the secular mindset embraced by the philosophical stance of pragmatism. We should look to Scripture, and believers need to be obedient to the call that God has placed on us to be expressions to the world of His love, compassion and mercy.

[Kabowd]

There is more to providing for a child than just food and shelter. There's a reason that two men or two women cannot produce a child biologically on their own. God has a design and an order, it's there for a reason. What I've noticed is that the majority of the views here have been expressed through the lens of pragmatism, fueled by an emotional appeal. It's admirable to want to address the needs of a child, or anyone in need. However, we should never let our compassion and emotions bring us to conclusions which are contrary to God's design.

Sorry honey, hate to have to disagree with you, but I do on this one. Jesus himself said that mercy was more important than sacrifice, so taking care of a child that can not take care of itself, regardless of who it is, would I believe be more important in this instance.

I wonder why God would be in favour of placing a child in the home of a gay couple? I think that is not right. God would never do it. so...we must conclude that people are doing what seems right in their own eyes---which is evil.

Proverbs 14:12

There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.

Oh yes...and leaving the kid on the street to prostitute herself or get raped is SO much better.

Again, this isn't the real dilemma, and this is viewing the entire issue pragmatically...instead of Scripturally. There are other options. Opening adoptions to gay couples does not solve this problem. It may seem like it does in theory, but it would be an uninformed and irrational conclusion.

[Kabowd]

Whoa we are all sinners

what is the difference between the sin of a liar

or the sin of a murderer

or the sin of a homosexual

or the sin of an idolizer

it's all sin

and all is the same in Gods eyes

In other words no sin is greater than another

Yes we would all prefer these children be adopted by God fearing loving people rather than non christians.

But, the truth of the matter is saved or not we are all sinners. Some of us are saved and some of us aren't.

And there aren't enough christians willing to adopt. And there are too many that turn there backs. (I'm talking about christians that can afford, do have time, and are healthy enough)

I apologize if I come accross to strong, this is just one of those subjects that can get me riled.

Love to all

We are all sinners, but all sin is not "equal". The consequences vary GREATLY from one sin to the next. Have you read the various Scriptures where believer are sternly warned against leading someone else astray? In fact, God is specifically firm in His warnings against harming children. We should take these warnings seriously.

There is also a vast difference between sin and habitual sin. An openly gay couple is living in blatant rebellion towards God. Read Romans 1 and you will see what happens to those who reject God openly, it leads to depravity in all areas. Sin does not stay in one neat little "compartment", it spreads like a disease (if left unrepented).

We can't fall into the trap that the secular worldview wants to force us into. This isn't an either/or situation ("either shes on the street/or gays adopt"). Again, this presents a false dilemma. It reminds me of the secular argument that goes "either women die having illegal abortions/or we make abortions legal and they become 'safe'". Again, they want to define the terms and establish a false dilemma so that their own agenda becomes priority. If you make an emotional appeal, and set up a false dilemma..it makes your stance seem more urgent (or even appear to be the only option). See how easily we can be deceived?