Thinking about adopting

[ptwild]

PT what is immediate family? Does this include your parents?

I associate "immediate family" with husband, wife and kids. For adults, I don't consider parents to be "immediate family." I can definitely understand a difference in opinion though.

[ptwild]

I go to vacations but I go with the whole family. If I ever go on a vacation by myself or with my husband, it will be a one time thing and doesn't happen often. But vacations will never be the reason why I send a child off to a nanny or boarding school .

btw, you can't just fire a nanny anytime you want. The child is more likely to be emotionally attached to her especially if you are gone all the time. It will break his heart if you fire her. Like I wrote, his heart is not to be messed with.

Well, I am my whole family. If I had a son, he would go with me on vacation. And who said I was gone all the time. I work a 9-9 jOB like most people. Occasionally, I have to leave the country for a few days. It's no different that a child going to day care, or school out side of the home for that matter.

[Psalms18_28]

If you have to go out of country for business , then I don't have a prOBlem with that.

[JerryNumbers]

I don't believe that would be possible Jerry. Why the rhetorical suggestion?

Why. You used Paul as an example here in a topic that has to do with adopting.

I have no prOBlem with a man who chooses not to marry, none at all, nor with a woman either.

You spoke of having money to do this, why not do the right thing and support a child in the proper environment where the child has both a father and mother.

The ideal environment for a child is to be in a Christian home that has both a father and mother, surely what we all want is what is best for the child, not us, if we are out for our self, them we are being selfish.

Many times doing that which is right is about sacrificing, and yes, I'm aware, many times that is so hard to do because of our wants.

You started this topic, I would figure you would want to hear from us and would only want our honest thoughts, so I have given mine.

[Psalms18_28]

yes, if you post here, expect answers you don't wanna hear.

[kevinmiller]

Family is very important to me so it's pretty important for me to get married and at least have two kids to continue the "Miller tradition" as it were. My dad was one of nine so there are plenty to do that but still, it's a pretty big deal to me. Must be the German in me.

[JerryNumbers]

I would think its a godly thing.

[kevinmiller]

Perhaps in some ways, yes. There are some godly Christians who don't have families, though.

[ptwild]

Why. You used Paul as an example here in a topic that has to do with adopting.

I have no prOBlem with a man who chooses not to marry, none at all, nor with a woman either.

You spoke of having money to do this, why not do the right thing and support a child in the proper environment where the child has both a father and mother.

The ideal environment for a child is to be in a Christian home that has both a father and mother, surely what we all want is what is best for the child, not us, if we are out for our self, them we are being selfish.

Many times doing that which is right is about sacrificing, and yes, I'm aware, many times that is so hard to do because of our wants.

You started this topic, I would figure you would want to hear from us and would only want our honest thoughts, so I have given mine.

In relation to the issue of not getting married, not adoption.

And I agree with you, the ideal environment would include a father and a mother. However, the child has neither now. I think me adopting a child is the exact opposite of selfishness. I could sit here with all my money and possessions and not share any of it, nor a piece of myself, with anyone. But that's not what I want to do. I want to give this kid a father, and at the same time, give myself the joy of fatherhood. If that makes me selfish, then I'm as proud as can be at my selfishness. I'd much rather be selfish than see this child grow up in the world he is currently in.

And I don't mind your honest thoughts, though I could do without the incessant judging.

[Anon]

Given the opportunity to pay for a child to be placed into a barren husband/wife family, you said no. That means you truly do not care about the child's "world he is currently in" but you only, for some reason, think it would be fun to have a kid and then pay a nanny to watch him until you are in the mood to be a dad...somewhat like the old British royalty handled things. You are assuming the child would be happy in that setup, and you are also assuming that your money (that you *claim* you have so much of) can answer all of life's little difficulties.

Have you ever talked to someone who grew up in a single parent household? Not all of them think its all peaches and cream.

[ptwild]

Given the opportunity to pay for a child to be placed into a barren husband/wife family, you said no. That means you truly do not care about the child's "world he is currently in" but you only, for some reason, think it would be fun to have a kid and then pay a nanny to watch him until you are in the mood to be a dad...somewhat like the old British royalty handled things. You are assuming the child would be happy in that setup, and you are also assuming that your money (that you *claim* you have so much of) can answer all of life's little difficulties.

Have you ever talked to someone who grew up in a single parent household? Not all of them think its all peaches and cream.

I take OBjection at your tone lady. You do nothing but assume based on preconceived notions and ideas. And I never denied that one of the reasons I wanted a child was for me. I want to know the joys of fatherhood. Did you and your husband not desire to be parents before you had children (assuming you have one)? And no one ever said anything about paying a nanny to watch him until I'm "in the mood to be a dad." A nanny would watch him while I'm at work, kind of like in house day care, or a baby sitter. I really don't see why you would have a prOBlem with this. I also never claimed to have "so much" money, only enough, and I never even insinuated that money "can answer all of life's little difficulties." By the way, I loved the little "*claim*" thing that you added - very cute and clever.

And I'm sure that single parent households are not "all peaches and cream." Neither are two parent households. But currently, the child is in a room all day with several other children. A nun comes by to hold and feed him a few times a day and but for that, it has little to no human contact. To even suggest that that type of life is preferable for the child, as opposed to him being raised by a loving father, who just happens to be single, is absurd.

Now, acknowledge that you have born false witness against me in the above-quoted post and go repent.

[speerjp1]

As far as not getting married' date=' I'm just not emotionally attracted to the idea of it. St. Paul, a personal role model, wasn't married and even [b']advised against it.

You should study 1 Corinthians 7 all the way through and learn what the proper motivation of single life should be if you are going to embrace it because of Paul's wish that all would remain single.

There is one reason for not marrying, for men or women, given in this passage and it can be found in verses 32-35:

32) But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

33) But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

34) There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

35) And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.

In this passage, it is clear that singleness for a Christian was never intended as a means to one's own personal (read: self-centered) freedom, but as a purer liberty to care less for this world and the things in it and to care more for Godly things without distraction.

[ptwild]

You should study 1 Corinthians 7 all the way through and learn what the proper motivation of single life should be if you are going to embrace it because of Paul's wish that all would remain single.

There is one reason for not marrying, for men or women, given in this passage and it can be found in verses 32-35:



In this passage, it is clear that singleness for a Christian was never intended as a means to one's own personal (read: self-centered) freedom, but as a purer liberty to care less for this world and the things in it and to care more for Godly things without distraction.

I don't embrace being single because of St. Paul. Just merely used him as an example of an unmarried man and made the comment that he has even advised against it. Of course, his advise against it was in the context in which you quoted, but that wasn't what we were talking about so there was no need to get into it. There still isn't.

And you can call it "self-centered freedom" but it is merely freedom (keep striving for those reasons to judge though ). I make no apologies for enjoying being single. Some people value being single more than being married, some people vice versa. Neither is more "right" than the other. It's just a personal preference.

[speerjp1]

(I wasn't sure if that was your reasoning or not. That is why I said "if" in my post and covered the issue in a little more depth: just for clarity's sake.)

As far as liberty goes, the Bible teaches that we as believers have liberty, but it is only a liberty to serve God in Christ through the Holy Spirit and to not be bound by anything in that is in the world or by our flesh or by the Devil. That principle would seem to have significant bearing in your current dilemma.

I'm just saying that if you value your singleness, it could potentially be at least for a Biblical reason.

[ptwild]

(I wasn't sure if that was your reasoning or not. That is why I said "if" in my post and covered the issue in a little more depth: just for clarity's sake.)

As far as liberty goes, the Bible teaches that we as believers have liberty, but it is only a liberty to serve God in Christ through the Holy Spirit and to not be bound by anything in that is in the world or by our flesh or by the Devil. That principle would seem to have significant bearing in your current dilemma.

I'm just saying that if you value your singleness, it could potentially be at least for a Biblical reason.

Interesting. How so?