It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Christian' adoption agency rejects Catholics

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Well, obviously the discussion of the original topic has been derailed by the need to tell Catholics what is wrong with them.

For the future, there is now a thread to help any of you avoid this impulse every time you see the word again.

Knock yourselves out.


www.belowtopsecret.com...




posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
So the catholic agnecy will adopt children out to Hindu, Muslim, atheist, buddist, wiccan, satanist, scientologist, darwinist, christian, catholic, judaism, humanist .. parents?


If they are to receive money from the sale of STATE liscense plates,
they had better. If they wish to only adopt out to Catholics then
the money from the sale of these plates has no business going to
them.

As I said in the first post ... If a group wants to adopt children out
to those just in their faith .. fine ... whatever. BUT if they want $$$
from the sale of these plates, then they need to be all inclusive.
If they don't wish to be all inclusive, then they shouldn't be getting
any of these funds. That includes EVERYONE - Protestant, Catholic,
Hindu, Jewish, whatever.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   
flyersfan
Stop verbally abusing your fellow members, it's conduct unbecoming a civilized person. They have as much a right to post here as you do. Wipe the froth away from your mouth and READ the replies this thread has generated.

The state money angle is FALSE.

Your argument has NO MERIT without that angle.

All this talk of demons makes me wonder who's possessed.



YOU and
your UNHOLY SPIRIT (that prevaids everything you discuss) caused the
problem.

Face it Jake. You, and the demon inside you, are the problem.
This thread was fine until you slithered in..


You think this helps reinforce your position?


[edit on 16-7-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by phalcon
If you take God at HIS word, you will allways be viewed as a biggot.

Nope. Not at all.

Jake has a LOOOOOOONG history of polluting forums with his
anti-Catholic drivel. It seems to be his self appointed mission. Many
have tried to educate him, and yet he continues to ignore their
posts. Everyone complains that he just blathers on and on without
reading responses. Usually he confines himself to BTS Religion Forum,
keeping the UNHOLY spirit that is around him out of our way. But not
today it seems.


FF ... Or is your agenda to attack Biblical Christianity?
I think thats what your actual agenda is.


Nope not at all. If you re-check this thread, you will see that the PURPOSE
was to discuss the funds of STATE liscense plates going to a group that
was non-inclusive. It was JAKE that came on and started slamming the
Catholic faith (as he always does). You are unaware of his history on
these boards. Do a 'Jake' search ... it's all he talks about, all he writes
about, all he drones on about ... even after having been debunked over
and over ...



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Relentless
Lip service is all well and good, but the figures that would be most illuminating would be: "what percentage of children adopted out by Catholic agencies end up in Catholic homes?"



Better yet - what percent of babies adopted out by a protestant adoption agency who only adopts babies out to protestant families, was put out for adoption by Catholic women who have been misled by the irresponsible and unscriptural teachings of the RCC that prohibit prophylactic measures and teach that sex is only for procreation?

That's the number I'd like to see.

And with that said - I think this adoption agency is doing a fine thing for society by trying to thwart the growth of people who are misled by the RCC



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Is it just me or are there a lot of pots in here talking to a kettle?


At this point, I don't even think some of you have a problem with Catholics as much as you just have a problem with FF. I have never seen her cross a line and I'm not seeing it this time either. Yet all these accusations.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless
Is it just me or are there a lot of pots in here talking to a kettle?


At this point, I don't even think some of you have a problem with Catholics as much as you just have a problem with FF. I have never seen her cross a line and I'm not seeing it this time either. Yet all these accusations.


Oh please - stop openly trying to make me barf - martyr looks so cheap on you.

Flyersfan ON THE SECOND POST IN THIS THREAD turned this to a protestant versus Catholic issue. The fact the protestant believers who run that adoption agency have decided to commit to their own beliefs and attempt to provide that belief system to the babies they SAVE and find families for is NOT a protestant versus Catholic issue. The ONLY people making it such are THE CATHOLICS.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
"what percentage of children adopted out by Catholic
agencies end up in Catholic homes?"


I know you addressed this to Relentless, but I'm going to jump in on
this too. FOR ME .. I don't care if some group wants to adopt out only
to 'their own'. It's when funds such as these are distributed that I
feel they should not go to non-inclusive groups.

We are adoptive parents. We adopted through a non-profit
organization that didn't care what religion you were. (Villa Hope in Birmingham Alabama - incase anyone is interested). If adoption
funds are to be gifted out from the sale of these plates, an agency
SUCH AS THIS ONE would be a wonderful place to donate to.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   


Stop verbally abusing your fellow members

I'm not verbally abusing anyone. Jake has a looooong history
of pulling this crap. He derails threads left and right beating
his anti-Catholic drum.


it's conduct unbecoming a civilized person.

Yeah right. I try to have a conversation about funds going to
non-inclusive agencies and I try to keep the discussion on that
rather than the anti-Catholic blathering and I'M the one
uncivilized.



They have as much a right to post here as you do.

Not really. They are supposed to be ON TOPIC. Which Jake never is.



The state money angle is FALSE.
Your argument has NO MERIT without that angle.

THAT is fine! THIS discussion is what was supposed to be
happening to begin with. Was it correct or not for those funds
to be going to a non-inclusive organization. Jake derailed that.


All this talk of demons makes me wonder who's possessed.

Irrational pathological anti-catholic obsession.
(yes, I was a psychology major so I DO understand those words)
His behavior also mirrors an UNHOLY spirit - not The Holy Spirit.
He has a history. Do a Jake search. He needs help.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Flyersfan ON THE SECOND POST IN THIS THREAD turned this to a protestant versus Catholic issue.

That wasn't the intent. The intent was to say 'Catholics ARE Christians
and that they don't understand Catholics'. I said that in an effort to just
ward off the usual 'Catholics aren't Christians' posts .. but they came in
anyways. Perhaps it was 'my bad' for taking preemptive measures to
ward it off .. or perhaps it was needed. Either way it's there.


The ONLY people making it such are THE CATHOLICS.

Valhall, normally I agree with ya' on things and I enjoy reading
what you have to say. However, I disagree with you on this.
You don't understand Jake. Look what he did. Threw a bomb into
what was otherwise a peaceful thread. Sorry Valhall. I disagree
with ya', which doesn't happen too often.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Honestly, FF's reasons for posting this in the first place were the same as mine. It wasn't the Catholic thing, it was the adoption thing.

It burns me that with all the obstacles there are in this country to adoption in the first place that this would be an issue, especially if any public funds are involved.

Now, I don't know how Val's post slipped in just over mine, so maybe it looks like I was talking to her, but I wasn't. But now we have all the best of ATS wrapped up in one thread.


I do disagree what turned this thread Val, did ya not catch that totally off topic first response to FF? By the way, I am not playing the martyr, I actually don't do that role well, if I were I would be humble and shut up.


P.S. Meow



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
I accuse you of not reading mine. The funds don't go toward the adopters, the funds go toward assistance for women who choose to place their babies up for adoption instead of having them aborted.

I did read that. Fine. That's good discussion.
That's what I wanted in the first place. We can discuss that.

Why do they have to go to a protestant adoption agency?

We went to a non-profit (non-religious) adoption agency. All the Catholic
and all the protestant adoption agencies didn't adopt out past age 35.
Neither did the state (Alabama - back in the '90's).

VERY stupid way of doing things ! Most people don't even find out that
they are having problems concieving until they are older!


[edit on 7/16/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless
It burns me that with all the obstacles there are in this country to adoption in the first place that this would be an issue, especially if any public funds are involved.


THAT's what I was (poorly) aiming at! If public funds are involved,
WHY are they going to groups that are non-inclusive? Why aren't they
going to non-profit groups that don't discriminate? THAT's what the
purpose of this thread was supposed to be! UGH.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by defcon5
WHERE DO YOU GET THIS FROM???
I suggest that you go do a bit of research into things
before you make a statement like this.

Already DID do research.
'The Facts about Luther'
ISBN 0-89555-322-8
Ask for it at your library or book store.
It's highly educational and packed full of
well documented quotes of his 'contemporaries'


many more biblically unfounded and
biblically opposed BS doctrines.

Nope. Nothing in the Catholic faith opposes scripture.
As far as 'biblically unfounded' ... try reading the biblical
quotes already posted. NOT ALL TRUTH is found in the
bible and the bible says so.



1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

That means MARY ISNT a mediator... therefor prayingto her is usless, amoung many other passages.

Re Baptisim

Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

What hinders a person from being baptized? Believing in their Hearts, somthing a child cant do.


Well of course there is truth outside of the bible. The Truth is my first name is Todd... I dont find that in the bible, but it is truth.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Whats this? Scripture is given so that the man of God may be perfect (in knowledge of christian condut)... Wow... guess then all I need its Gods Word on the Issue and not mans oppinion (tridition) Oh what else does the bible say...

1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

"ye need not that any man teach you" Well would not the triditions of men be a man teaching me?



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless
Well, obviously the discussion of the original topic has been derailed by the need to tell Catholics what is wrong with them.

For the future, there is now a thread to help any of you avoid this impulse every time you see the word again.

Knock yourselves out.


www.belowtopsecret.com...



Well actualy the discussion of Catholisim Doctrine is KEY to this discussion. The fact is the adoption agency has a Doctrinial Statment, and they feel that RC Doctrine conflict with theirs, and because of that they dont adopt out to them.

Then FF quoted a source that said "their priest sees no diffrences in doctrine" or to that liking.

So in order to prove that point wrong one needs to see that there are vast diffrences between christian and roman catholic teachings.

But futhermore, what is so wrong with being selective to who you adopt to? Not that I would ever put up a child of mine for adoption, but If i did, I would be very selective of who would raise my child.

Aside from that.. There is a big diffrence between showing someone they are wrong. The "Bashing" them. I mean would there not be a diffrence of me debating with someone who thinks the world is flat by showing them documentation/pictures to prove they are wrong, then saying "you stupid idiot for thinking the world is flat, you good for nothing loser of an idiot" The later would defenatly be a bash, but the first is a correction of an error. I mean parents do it all the time with their children but you dont accuse them of bashing.

Further thou I would ask, Why is this in the conspiracies section? Nothing is being done secreativly here for some biggger plot. Its mearly a debate over a groups choise of actions. Thats hardly a conspiracie. I Vote that this post be moved out of the "Conspiracies in Religion" area to another area more suted for debating groups policy

[edit on 7/16/2005 by phalcon]

[edit on 7/16/2005 by phalcon]



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by phalcon

Aside from that.. There is a big diffrence between showing someone they are wrong. The "Bashing" them. I mean would there not be a diffrence of me debating with someone who thinks the world is flat by showing them documentation/pictures to prove they are wrong, then saying "you stupid idiot for thinking the world is flat, you good for nothing loser of an idiot" The later would defenatly be a bash, but the first is a correction of an error. I mean parents do it all the time with their children but you dont accuse them of bashing.



There is bashing in this thread, and it's is the attempting to show Catholics they are wrong. No one faith can prove to another that their beliefs are wrong, if only for the fact that you cannot prove that other faiths are right. It's all a matter of your own perception and beliefs, none of it is provable right or wrong.

Everyone just has to get over that!

By the way, there is a big difference between a statement of faith and doctrine.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan


THAT's what I was (poorly) aiming at! If public funds are involved,
WHY are they going to groups that are non-inclusive? Why aren't they
going to non-profit groups that don't discriminate? THAT's what the
purpose of this thread was supposed to be! UGH.


For what feels like the fortieth time - BECAUSE THE FUNDS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ADOPTERS - they are funds to assist women who have chosen adoption over abortion.

And for what feels like the fortieth time - WHY ISN'T THIS GOOD ENOUGH?



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Val,

Thanks for stating the truth. FF gets pretty vile with me because of my stance on RCC doctrine. Youve seen everything thats been said about me here. Now scroll up and look at my posts.

The second post in this thread did indeed bring that very doctrine into the discussion, and it is indeed central to the issue.

Since the money was given freely, there is no requirment not to accept.
The second argument made was that a priest says RCC doctrine is no different then that protestant doctrine.
Hence, my post.

In my post, I showed that the doctrine on one hand is different then what is done with the other. RCC teachings being propagated are different the the agency beliefs.
Case closed.

Catholic is catholic, protestant is protestant. They are not the same.
Mary is not a virgin, mary did not get taken up, she died a normal human death, mary is not queen of heaven, mary cannot protect us or intercede for us or do anything for us. Only Jesus Christ.
The agency does not want to condemn the children to that doctrine.



Thanks


1Pe 3:13 And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?
1Pe 3:14 But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;
1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
1Pe 3:16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

PS

FF, with you being the example of Roman Catholic, ...you only reinforce the adoption agency's position. Read your words and ask yourself
"Would mary have said that?"

[edit on 16-7-2005 by jake1997]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   
I say take away the funding from this organization and give to one more worthy of the cause. The people are not "Christian" if they truly play the games mentioned in the article.

Another typical group who thinks there way is the better one, and then proceeds to show what a$$es they are. I'm trying not to be judgemental, but call it as I see it.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   
They are funded for the most part by the church.

You cant take it away.
So your saying that no religion is allowed to be exclusive? Who are you?
You feel that they should have to give up their religious freedom in order to help kids?

The interfaith aka ecumenical aka unity movement is not Jesus's movement.
Jesus was very exclusive and still is.

Where would you draw the line madman?

RCC?
Muslim?
Mormon?
JW's?
Satanist?
Humanist?

Do they have to serve children to all those?
I want to hear your answer for each




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join