Should Biblically Lawless People Have Responsibility Over Children

[Strangelove]

Should unrepentent people who openly practice lawlessness have positions of responsibility over our children?

We are not talking about redeemed, repentful sinners but specifically those who practice lawlessness and are totally unrepentful of the sin they are commiting.

Example 1:

Let's say someone is an adulterer. And they don't consider themselves to be doing anything wrong and they have no intentions to change their ways. Should they be allowed to teach our children or should we be actively frowning upon that and insisting that they either repent or be taken out of that position.

Example 2:

Let's say someone is a heroin addict. And they see nothing wrong with it. They are not interested with giving up. Should this person be allowed to be a scout master?

What do you guys think?

 

[Pebbles]

Should unrepentent people who openly practice lawlessness have positions of responsibility over our children?

We are not talking about redeemed, repentful sinners but specifically those who practice lawlessness and are totally unrepentful of the sin they are commiting.

Example 1:

Let's say someone is an adulterer. And they don't consider themselves to be doing anything wrong and they have no intentions to change their ways. Should they be allowed to teach our children or should we be actively frowning upon that and insisting that they either repent or be taken out of that position.

Example 2:

Let's say someone is a heroin addict. And they see nothing wrong with it. They are not interested with giving up. Should this person be allowed to be a scout master?

What do you guys think?

Not everyone is christian why ought I be subject to and or penalized in society for violating laws which are not legal law but are subject to your personal views. You have no basis that Biblical law regarding Sin is a universal law.

If it is right for you to do so and remove peoples jobs on that basis why is it not acceptable for me to remove you from all positions of responsibility as I feel your a paranoid schizophrenic... Basically strangelove unless you can find a causal relationship on why adulterers are unfit to watch over a group of kids
you need to learn to practice tolerance and not persecution this is a societal interest so that it doesn't potentially end up happening to you.

Views of sin and repentance about these things also are not universally shared by all Christians. compair and contrast.

Unitarian Universalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Southern Baptist Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Strangelove]

Not everyone is christian why ought I be subject to and or penalized in society for violating laws which are not legal law but are subject to your personal views. You have no basis that Biblical law regarding Sin is a universal law.

Ok forget about Chritianity or the bible for now. Let's take example 2. Would you be happy to have your child under the guidance of a heroin addict who doesn't think there is anything wrong with taking heroin?

It's a simple question. Yes or no?

If it is right for you to do so and remove peoples jobs on that basis why is it not acceptable for me to remove you from all positions of responsibility as I feel your a paranoid schizophrenic...

You would need evidence of your diagnosis for starters and if I was paranoid schizophrenic then yes I think you would have every right to remove me from a position of responsibility over children. And secondly this thread is not about psychiatric issues it's about unrepentent lawless people. You are clearly dodging the topic issue.

Basically strangelove unless you can find a causal relationship on why adulterers [WHO SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH ADULTERY] are unfit to watch over a group of kids you need to learn to practice tolerance and not persecution this is a societal interest so that it doesn't potentially end up happening to you.

Thats easy...the causal relationship is that someone who is doing something BAD and doesn't recognise it as BAD is a BAD influence on our children.

Would you not agree?

Views of sin and repentance about these things also are not universally shared by all Christians. compair and contrast.

Lolz. No surprise there. The whole world will be deceived.

 

[jasoncran]

Not everyone is christian why ought I be subject to and or penalized in society for violating laws which are not legal law but are subject to your personal views. You have no basis that Biblical law regarding Sin is a universal law.

If it is right for you to do so and remove peoples jobs on that basis why is it not acceptable for me to remove you from all positions of responsibility as I feel your a paranoid schizophrenic... Basically strangelove unless you can find a causal relationship on why adulterers are unfit to watch over a group of kids
you need to learn to practice tolerance and not persecution this is a societal interest so that it doesn't potentially end up happening to you.

Views of sin and repentance about these things also are not universally shared by all Christians. compair and contrast.

Unitarian Universalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Southern Baptist Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the uu and the mormons are not christians.

the problem with some of sl's thinking is this well we all sin. so if a person that has sin and isnt delevered yet and struggles with sin, should we fire and isolate him from society. this isnt a church, sl . you are mentioning society as a whole.

sinners have to eat. and live too. the boy scouts can legally select who the members are and who arent just as any club can that has been the case for yrs the supreme court ruled in that favor.

 

[jasoncran]

the uu and the mormons are not christians.

the problem with some of sl's thinking is this well we all sin. so if a person that has sin and isnt delevered yet and struggles with sin, should we fire and isolate him from society. this isnt a church, sl . you are mentioning society as a whole.

sinners have to eat. and live too. the boy scouts can legally select who the members are and who arent just as any club can that has been the case for yrs the supreme court ruled in that favor.

but to say force someone who isnt a christian to be jobless because of certian beliefs and discrimination of such like makes us not better then the muslims who would do that as well.

in a church yes we can should remove that person from that position but outside of that where do you stop.

i knew a restaurant in my hometown that all the servers were homosexuals.


i dont believe in gay rights but i wont tell them they cant teach, work or what not. i am agianst the lifting of dont ask dont tell for this reason.

i would be forced to live with them. and we dont have coed bunks.if i want someone to see my body then i want to volunteer that. not be forced.
and i dont like being made to say that lifestyle is normal.

on the civy side i wont have to do that.

 

[Strangelove]

the problem with some of sl's thinking is this well we all sin. so if a person that has sin and isnt delevered yet and struggles with sin, should we fire and isolate him from society. this isnt a church, sl . you are mentioning society as a whole.

READ the OP then start again Jas.

We are talking about people who do not even recognise a sin. And we're talking about isolating people from postitions of responsibility over children, not from society at large.

Address the examples I gave please.

 

[jasoncran]

READ the OP then start again Jas.

We are talking about people who do not even recognise a sin.

Address the examples I gave please.

public schools allow that.

and unless you suggest that we christian shouldnt take our kids to the public schools and no a heroin addict wont be allowed to teach.

even in the old school prayer days(which i recall very well). and the hanging of the ten commandments

teachers only taught the subjects not morality.

that is for the parents.

why do some people want to relinguish parental rights to the schools.

yes the schools did agree with our beliefs but they didnt tell me a jw that i was a cultist, or the mormon etc.

just the basic how to get along

let the reader be aware that sl is agianst pluralism.

america is a pluralistic society the founding fathers wanted it to be that way with the christian view being the dominating one and the others allowed to exist.

the christians have stopped being the salt that is the whole problem and the world being hungry and decieved went elsewhere.

i was a jw till at least 15.

i wasnt raised in a "christian" home


and add to that list these sins that all ignore and think ah god dont mind

lusts
lying
white lies
gossiping

in church yes, but dont think that in a church its not like that ,i have worked for a church.

 

[Christ_empowered]

I think it depends on the setting. In a private school, if a teacher is deemed "unfit" for moral reasons, then by all means--get them out of there.

In the public sphere, I think you have to realize that the vast majority of people aren't saved, but they still have to eat. That means, to me, we're going to have to adopt a "live and let live" approach to many sinful behaviors.

 

[Strangelove]

public schools allow that.

and unless you suggest that we christian shouldnt take our kids to the public schools and no a heroin addict wont be allowed to teach.

I'm not asking you what the laws of the land are or what schools allow....I'm asking for your personal opinion. Should people who are incapable of recognizing their own sinful behaviour be in positions of responsibility over children?

even in the old school prayer days(which i recall very well). and the hanging of the ten commandments

teachers only taught the subjects not morality.

that is for the parents.

why do some people want to relinguish parental rights to the schools.

Teachers have a responsibility to protect children from eachother and maintain basic moral standards because the parents are not there. Agreed?

let the reader be aware that sl is agianst pluralism.

america is a pluralistic society the founding fathers wanted it to be that way with the christian view being the dominating one and the others allowed to exist.

the christians have stopped being the salt that is the whole problem and the world being hungry and decieved went elsewhere.

Theres about 10 different definitions for 'pluralism', which one are you labelling me with? And before you post, just compare your definition with the possible reasons why Christians have stopped being the salt of the Earth would'ya. Thanks.

Doc.

 

[sherri2]

I remember hearing this story about a couple who put their baby in a frying pan. She survived, but was extremly emotionally scarred and institutionalised. I sometimes wonder how hard it must be for someone like that to forgive. We have free will, and that will never change.

 

[jasoncran]

quickly meaning this on pluralism that the all that arent "christian" should'nt be teachers.

in a nut shell.

so why shouldnt they?

a teacher isnt there to teach the bible. thus the separation of chruch and state! the govt is not to teach moral laws.

the early american the church taught and educated! not the govt!

when the govt took it it went from that pov to a more loose on based on th

 

[Strangelove]

quickly meaning this on pluralism that the all that arent "christian" should'nt be teachers.

Ok so thats the definition of pluralism.

What's the word for someone (like me) who thinks that all who cant recognize they're own BAD behaviour shouldn't be teachers.

Nothing to do with religion. Just morals.

Whats the name for that?

 

[Pebbles]

Thats easy...the causal relationship is that someone who is doing something BAD and doesn't recognise it as BAD is a BAD influence on our children.
Would you not agree?

No. It's not an issue of topical discussion If I were to become a teacher I would be a teacher of biology I would teach biology as would be my professional role that I was trained to perform. my personal life, love life or whatever simply dosen't factor into it you don't allow them to overlap.

And secondly this thread is not about psychiatric issues it's about unrepentent lawless people. You are clearly dodging the topic issue.

You can belive that but it's more about your moral opinions begin afforded free reign over others lives.

guidance of a heroin addict who doesn't think there is anything wrong with taking heroin?
It's a simple question. Yes or no?

If his personal life interferes with his professional life yeah whitch probably would be the case if you take £200 of heroin a day.

the uu and the mormons are not christians.

Hmm. That's actually sad thing to hear. *shrug*

i dont believe in gay rights but i wont tell them they cant teach, work or what not. i am agianst the lifting of dont ask dont tell for this reason.

Thing is with DADT is your already living with those pepole it's just if someone hunts them down they are savagely persicuted in a way that you say yourself is wrong.
Mike Almy, Soldier Discharged After Air Force Searched His Private Emails, 'Dumbfounded' By McCain Comments (VIDEO)
In this story Major Mike Almy had his personal email searched by his supereriors he was completely silent about his sexuallity to his co-workers he had sent emails to his partner at the time.
It was decreed that there is 'no private email' while in active service and he was discharged. although claims this dosen't happen it REALLY dose happen. Basically begin denied contact to there loved ones the poloicy is just a sheild for aggressive types of homophobia.

 

[lamplady]

Should unrepentent people who openly practice lawlessness have positions of responsibility over our children?

We are not talking about redeemed, repentful sinners but specifically those who practice lawlessness and are totally unrepentful of the sin they are commiting.

Example 1:

Let's say someone is an adulterer. And they don't consider themselves to be doing anything wrong and they have no intentions to change their ways. Should they be allowed to teach our children or should we be actively frowning upon that and insisting that they either repent or be taken out of that position.

Example 2:

Let's say someone is a heroin addict. And they see nothing wrong with it. They are not interested with giving up. Should this person be allowed to be a scout master?

What do you guys think?

I think it would be wise to understand that those who may be unrepentant today may become repentant tomorrow. We have no way of knowing. So yes all these people should be allowed to have responsibility over children. We may not like it but we are not living in a perfect world yet. I believe it's up to believers to instill the gospel in the children and adults alike.

A point to remember too is children who may have heard the gospel may still one day grow up to be these unrepentant sinners ...

 

[Strangelove]

No. It's not an issue of topical discussion If I were to become a teacher I would be a teacher of biology I would teach biology as would be my professional role that I was trained to perform. my personal life, love life or whatever simply dosen't factor into it you don't allow them to overlap.

Do you agree that a teacher is responsible not only for teaching the subject put also to keep order in the classsroom?

You can belive that but it's more about your moral opinions begin afforded free reign over others lives.

Exactly. My childrens lives.

If his personal life interferes with his professional life yeah whitch probably would be the case if you take £200 of heroin a day.

What if his lack of morals interfered with his proffesional duties? Example....He's a heroin addict that see's nothing wrong with taking heroin. So when he hears 2 boys chatting about maybe experimenting with heroin after school or even taking heroin in class, he will probably either say nothing or possibly even encourage it.

What then? Is that acceptable? Wouldn't you rather have someone who says..'hey...that wouldn't be a good idea fellas'?

 

[Strangelove]

I think it would be wise to understand that those who may be unrepentant today may become repentant tomorrow.

We're talking about the safety of our children here not the welfare of lawless people orwho may may not eventually recognise their sins.

We have no way of knowing. So yes all these people should be allowed to have responsibility over children. We may not like it but we are not living in a perfect world yet.

Really? Even though you don't like it [understatement! I would be extremely concerned] you would stay silent knowing a heroin addict who thinks taking heroin is NOT a bad thing is responsible for your child?

I believe it's up to believers to instill the gospel in the children and adults alike.

A point to remember too is children who may have heard the gospel may still one day grow up to be these unrepentant sinners ...

Maybe I'm missing the relevence of this?

 

[Strangelove]

I think it depends on the setting. In a private school, if a teacher is deemed "unfit" for moral reasons, then by all means--get them out of there.

In the public sphere, I think you have to realize that the vast majority of people aren't saved, but they still have to eat. That means, to me, we're going to have to adopt a "live and let live" approach to many sinful behaviors.

]

I'm not talking about the sinful behaviours themselves I'm asking if you think these people who don't even know they are sinning are suitable to be molders of young minds.

 

[Sissy]

Should unrepentent people who openly practice lawlessness have positions of responsibility over our children?

We are not talking about redeemed, repentful sinners but specifically those who practice lawlessness and are totally unrepentful of the sin they are commiting.

Example 1:

Let's say someone is an adulterer. And they don't consider themselves to be doing anything wrong and they have no intentions to change their ways. Should they be allowed to teach our children or should we be actively frowning upon that and insisting that they either repent or be taken out of that position.

Example 2:

Let's say someone is a heroin addict. And they see nothing wrong with it. They are not interested with giving up. Should this person be allowed to be a scout master?

What do you guys think?

Parents should protect their children from danger, both spiritually and physically.

However, we also don't want to go overboard and turn into "witch hunters" and start ostracizing people because of sin.
If we do that, then we are not a good example to our children, but would be like this Pharisee .....

Luke 18
(9) And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
(10) Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
(11) The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
(12) I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
(13) And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
(14) I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
​

But to address the specifics of your examples ....

Example 1:

Let's say someone is an adulterer. And they don't consider themselves to be doing anything wrong and they have no intentions to change their ways. Should they be allowed to teach our children or should we be actively frowning upon that and insisting that they either repent or be taken out of that position.

Might need to be a little more specific as to what they are teaching.
Are they actually teaching that adultery is OK?
Or are they just teaching math or history?

You can teach, and still be a sinner in your actions.
For we are told ....

Matthew 23
(1) Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
(2) Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
(3) All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
​

"Sitting in Moses' seat" refers to when they read the law and the prophets to the crowd.
So, yes, you take heart as to what they are teaching, because the teaching itself is true.
But you do not follow their personal actions.

Example 2:

Let's say someone is a heroin addict. And they see nothing wrong with it. They are not interested with giving up. Should this person be allowed to be a scout master?

A heroin addict loses the sense of reality while he is spaced out.
I doubt he could even tie a shoe!
And more than likely would not even realize that a child was with him!
One would be foolish to leave a child in the care of a heroin addict.

 

[lamplady]

We're talking about the safety of our children here not the welfare of lawless people orwho may may not eventually recognise their sins.

We live in a sinful world though ...

Really? Even though you don't like it [understatement! I would be extremely concerned] you would stay silent knowing a heroin addict who thinks taking heroin is NOT a bad thing is responsible for your child?

If anyone had serious concerns about someones conduct then of course no-one should remain silent. But if addicts manages to be responsible in his/her job then I don't think it's fair to sack them.

*Please bear in mind though I haven't got a clue how heroin addicts thinks or behave - but I'm assuming their main aim is this need for injected chemicals on a regular basis. Assuming that is the case, I'm not sure how it affects his behaviour responsibility wise when needs be. Do they ALL automatically think it's ok for others to do it?

Maybe I'm missing the relevence of this?

I think what you was saying you want your children to be around responsible Godly people thinking that they in turn will grow up to be the same. I'm saying that is not necessarily gong to be the case ...

....

 

[handy]

You pick two very different scenarios in your OP...adultery and addiction.

Some would make the point that, whereas heroin addiction, by definition, will render a person unfit to teach (because they would be too strung out to do anything), adultery would not.

But, kids who are being taught by Mr. Jones who has been openly living with Mrs. Smith for some time now, will grow up thinking, why that's not so bad, Mr. Jones and Mrs. Smith did it, and Mr. Jones was my favorite teacher.

Same as a homosexual teacher. One of my own favorite teachers, Ms. Leach, was lesbian and lived with a woman. Didn't affect her ability to be the best PE teacher ever, and no, she didn't check us out in the showers, being in a solid relationship and not given to pedophilia.

However, many right now are probably cringing to think of a lesbian being a girls PE teacher back in the days when one had to shower before going back to class.

So, perhaps we should ensure that no one who has obvious moral issues should teach children...

But, this must include those who are Christian as well, because I submit a Christian who practices lawlessness is even more insidious than a non-Christian who does so. Because then, not only will the young mind think that the immoral issue is OK, they will perceive that even God is OK with it.

So, lets come up with a list of all things lawless that people practice and make sure that anyone who practices these things can never work with children...

And, so that we don't fall into any "Noahide" traps, let's just cover lawlessness and unrighteousness that is identified as such in the New Testament.

Adultery
Fornication
Homosexuality
Addiction
Gossip

Anyone who practices idolatry. You know, Strangelove, we truly do have to eliminate anyone not a Christian because idolatry is listed in the New Testament as unrighteousness right up there with adultery and homosexuality. But, this can be a tricky one, because we also know that idolatry is putting anything as being more important than God, so even a Christian who is shown to love their spouse or children or home or job more than God must be included.
...But, we don't want to be unfair and just throw out anyone who looks like they might be an idolater, that would be Phariseeism, (not to mention unAmerican!) One is innocent until proven guilty. How to prove that one loves their spouse, child or job more than God...perhaps a test like how much "quality time" one spends with God as opposed to one's wife, children etc.? Naturally, anyone who worships "Mammon" (has too much of an interest in getting money) is guilty of practicing idolatry, so all rich people will naturally have to prove that, even though they are rich, they are not guilty of idolatry.

Anyone who covets. This would be anyone who desires their neighbors wife (or husband) and/or possessions. Note that this just includes the desire, actually taking one's neighbor's spouse or possessions is covered under the laws against adultery and stealing. Be sure to catch up one what Jesus had to say about just looking at someone else with lust.

Anyone who rails or reviles another. Definition of railing or reviling...verbally abusing others, speaking against them with contemptuous language or to utter bitter complaints or vehement denunciations against another. This would eliminate me from teaching anyone from 6th grade onwards, because I can't imagine spending days on end with your average teenager and not breaking this one fairly regularly. But, it would also include anyone that vehemently denounces others, and, since the New Testament does not differentiate between people, this would include our Presidents, famous televangelists, etc.

Gee the list does go on doesn't it.