|
Post by arietty on May 28, 2010 21:17:31 GMT -5
(and on other threadly topics - I do think that it's important to see eugenics as the really nasty philosophy that it is. QF is essentially about the same thing - it's just reversed. Instead of preventing the "undesirables" (I really hate people sometimes for thinking up awful things) from breeding, they're just going at it from the other angle and planning to out-breed them. Doesn't that nasty Bokins man have like a 200 year plan for all his potential descendants taking over the nation or something? Truly, maddeningly evil.) Yes he does. The QF plan (which not everyone who is QF is into, but it's there in the teachings) is for Christians to breed and homeschool their children into the religious right and dominate the government in the next generation. Where this falls down is that only a small percentage of families that have tons of kids manage to educate them enough that they could actually go into politics effectively or even go to college. These are the families that shine in the media, promoting the wonders of homeschooling. They are very much the minority. The vast army of super educated movers and shakers the movement envisioned in the beginning does not exist. One thing I've observed is how common it is for QF sons to join the army--their best career option as poor and under educated males.
|
|
|
Post by km on May 28, 2010 22:44:16 GMT -5
(and on other threadly topics - I do think that it's important to see eugenics as the really nasty philosophy that it is. QF is essentially about the same thing - it's just reversed. Instead of preventing the "undesirables" (I really hate people sometimes for thinking up awful things) from breeding, they're just going at it from the other angle and planning to out-breed them. Doesn't that nasty Bokins man have like a 200 year plan for all his potential descendants taking over the nation or something? Truly, maddeningly evil.) Yes he does. The QF plan (which not everyone who is QF is into, but it's there in the teachings) is for Christians to breed and homeschool their children into the religious right and dominate the government in the next generation. Where this falls down is that only a small percentage of families that have tons of kids manage to educate them enough that they could actually go into politics effectively or even go to college. These are the families that shine in the media, promoting the wonders of homeschooling. They are very much the minority. The vast army of super educated movers and shakers the movement envisioned in the beginning does not exist. One thing I've observed is how common it is for QF sons to join the army--their best career option as poor and under educated males. Wait, what? It's a minority? Everyone I've ever known in QF belonged to this group. My first introduction to it came from people who come from around the DC metro area, so I suspect that that has something to do with it... For someone who was never super involved in the movement, I actually met the leaders of, say, the HSLDA and some of the other big political groups as a child. When these kids went to college, it was Patrick Henry. The family friends who got me into this? Most of you have probably heard of them. And not only that, but I've reconnected with people I knew as a teenager on NLQ, so it was my impression that this was kind of...how it worked. And I was never even homeschooled, and I never went to a homeschool conference... This is just the community that I had access to. They all knew their congressmen, and they planned regular lobbying days on Capitol Hill. They taped their mouths shut in front of the Supreme Court. It was kind of...my impression that most of the movement was like this. So, really, it's just the people I have happened to know? The ones I always knew in NC were like this too--highly politicized leader types, that is. Always protesting something that signified the end of the world, basically. They terrified me--that's how they got me into it.
|
|
|
Post by jadehawk on May 28, 2010 23:06:46 GMT -5
Yes he does. The QF plan (which not everyone who is QF is into, but it's there in the teachings) is for Christians to breed and homeschool their children into the religious right and dominate the government in the next generation. Where this falls down is that only a small percentage of families that have tons of kids manage to educate them enough that they could actually go into politics effectively or even go to college. These are the families that shine in the media, promoting the wonders of homeschooling. They are very much the minority. The vast army of super educated movers and shakers the movement envisioned in the beginning does not exist. One thing I've observed is how common it is for QF sons to join the army--their best career option as poor and under educated males. Wait, what? It's a minority? Everyone I've ever known in QF belonged to this group. My first introduction to it came from people who come from around the DC metro area, so I suspect that that has something to do with it... For someone who was never super involved in the movement, I actually met the leaders of, say, the HSLDA and some of the other big political groups as a child. When these kids went to college, it was Patrick Henry. The family friends who got me into this? Most of you have probably heard of them. And not only that, but I've reconnected with people I knew as a teenager on NLQ, so it was my impression that this was kind of...how it worked. And I was never even homeschooled, and I never went to a homeschool conference... This is just the community that I had access to. They all knew their congressmen, and they planned regular lobbying days on Capitol Hill. They taped their mouths shut in front of the Supreme Court. It was kind of...my impression that most of the movement was like this. So, really, it's just the people I have happened to know? The ones I always knew in NC were like this too--highly politicized leader types, that is. Always protesting something that signified the end of the world, basically. They terrified me--that's how they got me into it. she meant those who actually succeed as planned and end up with a crowd of well-educated future leaders are in the minority; the rest fail their kids and leave them undereducated and unprepared. They may be protesting etc, but not even the TeaParty leaders are that severely undereducated. They have limited political clout, mostly
|
|
|
Post by arietty on May 29, 2010 0:53:42 GMT -5
Yes and the families that succeed most likely value education and have the means to deliver it. You may also find they use outside resources more. The "means" to deliver isn't just money either, it's energy, health, functionality of the family.. and money helps.
A lot of people think you will achieve this for your kids just homeschooling them, that homeschooling guarantees your kid will be ahead of all their peers, untouched by the myth of teenage-ness and chock full of education. It is often implied that worldliness is what derails kids from this future and so protecting them will keep them give them great opportunities. The reality is many kids send up with much less education than their parents did, pressed into increasing housework because of numerous siblings, getting less and less education from an exhausted mom and a dad struggling to support that many children. Add to this the rural nature of many families (cheaper housing, farming idealisms) and you have 18 year olds whose education is sadly lacking. They would have been much better off going to public school where other people had an investment in their education.
|
|
|
Post by km on May 29, 2010 0:58:05 GMT -5
Yes and the families that succeed most likely value education and have the means to deliver it. You may also find they use outside resources more. The "means" to deliver isn't just money either, it's energy, health, functionality of the family.. and money helps. Oh, yeah... I totally noticed this, and realized that my understanding of the homeschooling world was skewed when I started reading more perspectives here. The people I knew were quite well-off in many ways.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on May 29, 2010 1:12:26 GMT -5
The home schooled kids of my friends are actually quite well educated, but only one of those families has the rural quiverfull lifestyle and in those cases both sets of parents are very well educated themselves as are the entire rest of their families, and they also meet with other home school families for group sports and general enrichment activities. I say that now as those kids are adults or near adulthood so they can be judged on how well they did at this point. So I don't think it's necessarily that home schooled kids are not educated well but it is a matter of who is doing the teaching, whether they invest the time and talent into doing so, and whether that time and attention gets diverted into younger siblings rather than education that makes a huge difference. Then add the 'girls don't need to learn more than what they need to know to be good keepers at home' mentality to that overwhelmed and/or undereducated mix and you are ripe for a poorly educated female child.
But it isn't necessarily so if the parents do their job and really invest in it fully and are capable of doing so.
The thing that killed me about Phillips' 200 year plan was the sheer gall of someone thinking that all those generations were 'his' somehow. Like those people were his descendants and as their 'patriarch' he could control their outcome. It is so arrogant and proud the way patriarchal men talk about their children and grandchildren as though they belonged to them and not to God. My pastor used to say that God doesn't have any grandchildren. These patriarchal men act as though God really does and he gave their care and ultimate destiny over to those men to oversee. That's a lot of nerve, to think that way.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on May 29, 2010 5:11:40 GMT -5
btw I don't mean to sound like I think homeschooling is always a disaster or a bad choice. I know it isn't and that some families have a great and successful time with it. If your aim with homeschooling is to educate them better than schools you do have to know when it's time to change what you are doing. I've know homeschool families that sent the kids to school once the work was beyond the parents.. and families that just stopped teaching at that point and came up with some religious blather about "character" or what have you being what you really need to learn. You really see how putting ideology ahead of people ruins what could be a good idea.
It is very hard to do well, or even competently at a high school level if you have lots of kids. It's even harder if you're poor. I think the 200 year plan would have had much more chance of impact if these families had 2 or 3 kids and poured everything into them.. which is kind of ironic.
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on May 29, 2010 14:22:19 GMT -5
So I don't think it's necessarily that home schooled kids are not educated well but it is a matter of who is doing the teaching, whether they invest the time and talent into doing so, and whether that time and attention gets diverted into younger siblings rather than education that makes a huge difference. Then add the 'girls don't need to learn more than what they need to know to be good keepers at home' mentality to that overwhelmed and/or undereducated mix and you are ripe for a poorly educated female child. But it isn't necessarily so if the parents do their job and really invest in it fully and are capable of doing so. I homeschool two girls and I am barely hanging on by my fingernails to educate them according to the high standards I hold. Maybe some people have more energy than I do, but I have no idea how anyone manages to educate a whole passel of kids well. Maybe they hire cleaning help? It is nearly a full-time job and running a home and family as well is a lot of work. (OTOH, I look at how much hassle and work and pointless time wastage my public-school friends put up with and wonder how they endure it, so maybe it's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other...) Anyway. That whole 'girls don't need education' thing is very self-defeating. Such an attitude will never result in the large, well-educated army QF'ers hope for. The fact is that in general, a mother's educational level is what determines the children's education--children will tend to become as educated as their mother is, and a father's education has much less direct impact. Therefore we now know that in developing countries, the fastest and best way to help a population rise and prosper is to educate (and employ) the girls.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on May 29, 2010 14:55:51 GMT -5
Well, the friends I am thinking of had a really good set up and grim determination as well as being very well educated themselves. One family has four girls near the same age (one plus triplets) so that makes it easier also. So it worked for them and they are all entering good colleges now. So it can be done but it requires, IMO, a perfect alignment of the moon and stars or it won't go as well. That's my opinion.
Personally, I am no slouch in the education department but I know that I am simply not temperamentally suited to home school my children. I gave them an excellent Catholic school education and never looked back. It really is such a personal decision and one that has to be made taking all the specific variables of the people involved into consideration.
The mother is key, though. The eighth season of The Amazing Race had a loathsome family of mom plus her four teenage kids and she proudly stated that she home schooled them. Her (and their) complete ignorance of basic geography as well as a lot of other rudimentary knowledge was appalling. She would use some of the stops as 'teaching moments' and then completely botch the preschool level of information she as trying to impart to her teenagers in the name of 'educating them'. What she 'taught' them about Utah would make you cry. Truly the blind leading the blind, for no good reason whatsoever. Those kids are doomed.
I always want to ask those patriarchal leaders who insist on home schooling but don't want to spend much effort in teaching the girls who the hell do they think is going to home school their grandchildren, which probably includes boys. They are so in love with the stone age all the while giving lip service to giving the children a better education at home...It would be laughable if their kids weren't so handicapped by their foolishness.
But that's not all home schoolers....
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on May 29, 2010 15:24:55 GMT -5
Hee hee. Sorry, I had to post it. I probably would cry about the Utah learning moment, since I'm Mormon (though I've never lived there and have not a single pioneer ancestor). Lots of people do it well. I know many of them. But I think the motivation has to come from inside, not because someone else told you it was the right thing to do. If it's not your passion you'll crash and burn, I think.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on May 29, 2010 15:56:27 GMT -5
A funny (if it weren't also so tragic) lampoon of the patriarchal reasoning behind the training of children was posted on salon.com. It's called 'Training Your Kids the Patriarch Way', mocking the writings of good ol' Philip Lancaster. Lancaster is one of the worst IMO: blogs.salon.com/0002874/2005/08/19.html"Sending a daughter to college, in my view, would be to tempt her to abandon the calling God has given her and to invite her to develop a spirit of independence. It would also weaken the influence that my wife and I could exert and would likely lead to the fracturing of our family as she would likely marry someone of her own choosing and move somewhere else. Exactly. If she went to college, she might escape."
Why fill their pretty little heads with useless information that would tempt them to think for themselves? That would just lead to rebellion. But at least Lancaster is consistent. He doesn't think the boys need to know much either except manual labor, so I guess it doesn't matter whether the girls can educate their children. Their children don't need to know much in any case. What a waste. If these people manage to take over the country it'll only be because they stormed the gates with pitchforks and torches.
|
|
jo
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
Post by jo on May 29, 2010 16:16:15 GMT -5
Wow, km, so my point that people are complicated and niether fully good nor fully evil....and you take away that I'm telling you to hate your family AND have set Margaret Sanger up as a hero simply because of who she is.
Since the point of this point is clearly NOT to ask those who have been within the QF movement to give feedback to the FAQ posted, I will remove myself from the conversation. There's really little else to be said if I failed to make my point that people are complicated but still capable of contributing worthy things to this world....and that the point of discrediting Sanger likes in assaulting her character merely so they QF/P camp can then align what she contributed to society with that discreated character. Its a smoke screen, since they themselves are guilty of the VERY SAME character flaw they convict Sanger on. Ever looked at the racial demographics in QF, in P circles, at Patrick Henry College, at ANY of these groups? I have. Minorities are super, super rare. Even in homeschooling, minorities are even less represented than in the general population and tend to homeschool for different reasons than the QF/P traditional homeschoolers.
The technique of the QF movement bringing Sanger and her Eugenics into the argument is to assasinate her character, nothing more or less. It becomes a red herring from the get go.
Obviously, my point was missed. I'll step back now.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on May 29, 2010 16:17:09 GMT -5
Great picture. Well, the family was complaining about Utah being so 'empty' and that obviously there is no world population problem since Utah is ugly and lacking in people (they were in Monument Valley, btw). Mom said they should talk about what they know about Utah and after a long silence the only thing they all could think of was 'there's Mormons'. Whatever they are. In an earlier leg of the race Mom told the kids that Lake Pontchartrain was one of the Great Lakes. Even though they were in Florida. Like I said, those kids are doomed. But the kids are also complete assholes to everyone they meet so I find it hard to feel sorry for them really. Horrible people.
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on May 29, 2010 16:22:48 GMT -5
Utah is a desert, of course it's not heavily populated everywhere--but then you go to the Salt Lake valley and it's like a lake of houses, filling the whole dang valley. Too crowded for my taste!
|
|
|
Post by km on May 30, 2010 15:21:56 GMT -5
Wow, km, so my point that people are complicated and niether fully good nor fully evil....and you take away that I'm telling you to hate your family AND have set Margaret Sanger up as a hero simply because of who she is. Since the point of this point is clearly NOT to ask those who have been within the QF movement to give feedback to the FAQ posted, I will remove myself from the conversation. There's really little else to be said if I failed to make my point that people are complicated but still capable of contributing worthy things to this world....and that the point of discrediting Sanger likes in assaulting her character merely so they QF/P camp can then align what she contributed to society with that discreated character. Its a smoke screen, since they themselves are guilty of the VERY SAME character flaw they convict Sanger on. Ever looked at the racial demographics in QF, in P circles, at Patrick Henry College, at ANY of these groups? I have. Minorities are super, super rare. Even in homeschooling, minorities are even less represented than in the general population and tend to homeschool for different reasons than the QF/P traditional homeschoolers. The technique of the QF movement bringing Sanger and her Eugenics into the argument is to assasinate her character, nothing more or less. It becomes a red herring from the get go. Obviously, my point was missed. I'll step back now. Eh, no, not at all. I understood exactly what you said. I took your defense of your grandmother as meaning that you saw my point about racism as having something to do with your family. The point was that I've seen this many times among white folks discussing racism. We're talking about racism, and then all of a sudden we were talking about your great grandmother. I've tried to make this point three or four separate ways. Please PM me if you still don't understand it, and I'll try to explain privately. ETA: For clarification: You became defensive about one of your family members (how amazing she was, etc.) when I brought up racism. There seemed to be a disconnect there, and it's one that I've come up against with various people throughout this country (more outside of the South than in the South IME, though...in predominantly white regions where the culture hasn't come through the Civil Rights movement and developed a language with which to speak about race. I noticed it quite a bit when we talked about racism in the college courses I taught in PA.). That is, it's not uncommon for people who have not been around a lot of anti-racist talk to feel defensive of family members during discussions about racism--even when your family member was not the person being discussed. My point was that this kind of discussion need not make you feel defensive of your family and, in fact, has nothing to do with you and your specific family members or me and mine. Is this clearer now? My shorter way of saying this tends to be, "Dude, why are you acting like I just told you you have to hate your family in order to be a good anti-racist?" Also, I felt that you assumed that all Sanger critique comes from something like a Gothardite perspective. Either that, or it's the only critique you've been exposed to. My point was that there are, in fact, good faith critiques of her out there. It was unclear to me from your posts whether or not you are familiar with any of them (or are just reacting against the Gothard type critique). Many are valid. In fact, many are feminist. I felt that you were veering in a direction that I don't agree with in response to the bad faith QF critiques of Sanger. One that veered into apologism for someone who was important in history but highly flawed. Again, I tried to clarify that several times, but if you're still unclear, please PM me as I don't want to keep subjecting everyone to the same points over and over. I used more colorful language in the previous posts, so hopefully this makes things more clear for you. Your point about how rare minorities are at Patrick Henry and within QF further illustrates that you understand my point: Gothard and company aren't in it 'cause they really care about combating racism. Nevertheless, I wanted to point out that there are others of us out there who do. Anti-Gothard kinds of people. I was not sure whether or not you knew that. I don't want to keep restating this in different ways anymore because that will soon start to annoy the people who got it the first time, but feel free to send a PM if you still feel I'm being unclear.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 31, 2010 19:21:36 GMT -5
I have been reading the discussion here with great interest. If no one minds, however, I would like to get back to the development of FAQ that engendered this interesting exchange. I've been working hard over the last few days to address the issues that Seekingtruth raised, with a view towards improving the way the FAQ addresses the concerns of Quiverfull women. I'm now ready to ask for input from forum members. Below are Seekingtruth's points, which I have included verbatim unless my answer to one of her points would be identical to my answer to another-- in which case I have deleted material that would result in redundant answers. After each (italicized) point she raised, comes my response. I would appreciate input from all readers, particularly those who are ex-Quiverfull, as to whether a particular point needs to be added to the FAQ. The FAQ is already five typewritten pages long, so any help anyone can offer on what needs to be added and what could be removed or condensed, would be very much appreciated. So here goes: ***** One of the things that struck me most about birth control was that being involved with it was aligning myself with an evil organization, Planned Parenthood, that promotes promiscuous behavior, virtually insuring that there will be consequences of plenteous unintended pregnancies ending them by the murder of the innocent babies as well as rampant STDs. I did not want to be a part of this. The Lord showed that the same anti-baby, me-first mentality had become part of my thinking and He said "Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them." (Eph 5:11)”It seems to me that it would be a distraction from the real issue, to address the question in my FAQ as to whether or not PP is an “evil organization.” The real issue is whether using birth controls allies one with Planned Parenthood or not. Since birth control has admittedly been around since at least the time of Onan, birth control, in and of itself, cannot be considered to be the exclusive realm of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood was certainly involved with the development and distribution of hormonal methods of birth control, but there are certainly other effective methods besides these. However, addressing the issue of hormonal birth control, there is a logical question of whether using something developed by an organization you disagree with, automatically allies you with that organization or means that you endorse all of the practices of that organization. If all birth control pills were Planned Parenthood products, and buying them resulted in profit to Planned Parenthood, that would be one thing. But Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization-- and birth control pills are not products belonging to Planned Parenthood. The light bulb was invented by Thomas Edison, and his company is now called General Electric. Are we allying ourselves with GE every time we buy a light bulb, regardless of whether or not it is a GE light bulb? Are we, in buying a light bulb, stating that we agree with Thomas Edison’s worldview and are followers of his beliefs? Obviously not. And when it comes to Planned Parenthood and hormonal birth control, the same logic must apply. Ephesians 5 also tells the husband to agape-love his wife. Is birth control or sterilization part of that agape-love?What is agape-love? Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says, “Agapeo [verb form] is the characteristic word of Christianity. . .Christian love has God as its primary object, and expresses itself first of all in implicit obedience to his commandments. . . Christian love is not an impulse from the feelings. . . but seeks the welfare of all, and works no ill to any.” The question, then, is whether, regardless of the impulses of the feelings, birth control is what is best for a particular family in a particular set of circumstances. A husband who agape-loves his wife seeks to know her needs and what is best for her welfare. Given the absence of a clear command from God not to use birth control (which clear command does not exist anywhere in the Bible), the use of birth control, in and of itself, cannot be considered to be fundamentally contrary to the welfare of the wife or family. Therefore, a husband showing agape-love would consider his own family’s particular circumstances and needs, and would carefully listen to the expressed needs of his wife, so that they could make a decision together about whether birth control or sterilization would be right for their family. The OT scriptures do reflect that Onan was killed by God specifically because he wasted seed, else otherwise it would only have been a public humiliation in the removal of his sandal and being spat upon in the face (Deut 25:5-10) In my FAQ I addressed specifically the comparison of Deut. 25:5-10 in explaining what the actual difference is. I said: The context of this passage is Onan’s unwillingness to fulfill his duty in that culture to his brother’s widow. Onan married his brother’s widow and “went in unto“ her as a husband to a wife-- but then emitted on the ground, “lest that he should give seed to his brother. This is sometimes compared with Deuteronomy 25:7, where the consequences of refusing to take a brother’s widow as wife are not death, but only public shame. But the situation in Deuteronomy 25 involves only refusing to marry the widow. What Onan did was much worse. He went ahead and married her, but then selfishly refused to raise a child that would be considered legally his brother’s and not his own. It wasn’t that he didn’t want children; it’s that he wanted children only for his own profit! But the woman could not marry anyone else. His act consigned her to childlessness whether she liked it or not. And it was a great deception for Onan to pretend to do his duty to his brother outwardly, but then to go back on it in the privacy of the home. It was not for simple birth control that Omar was judged by God. It was for fraud, greed, deception and covenant-breaking. The birth control was the means by which the crime was committed. The birth control itself was not the crime.The main point I was making is that it is a far worse thing to enter a marriage covenant and then refuse to keep the terms of the covenant you have made, than to simply refuse to make a covenant in the first place. It is this, and not the use of birth control, which really differentiates the two passages. I need to know whether I was too wordy, or in some other way not clear? Various other OT scriptures Lev 21:17-20; 22:20-22,24; calls damage to male reproductive organs a "defect" and those with "defect" were not allowed to present offerings. Castration of animals is likewise called a blemish. Isn't is moreso a blemish for US being that humans are made in the image of God? Lev 25:11-12 tells the penalty if a wife grabs another man's genitals even if protecting her husband from death -- her hand to be cut off. Thank the Lord we are living in the days of the NT and the New Covenant, but be reminded it is still important to glean the "principles" from the OT.I assume this is meant to convey that male sterilization is in some way a “defect” comparable to the Leviticus passages. These passages were directed only to Aaron and his sons with regards to their priestly function. None of the ordinary citizens of Israel were allowed to make offerings at all. The point was that those making offerings, and the offerings themselves, needed to be whole and complete as a way to honor God (offering God a lame animal rather than a healthy one was a form of cheating, for instance.) All of the “defects” mentioned are actual external damage to some part of the body. Note that the person who had any such condition was still fully accepted among God’s people and still allowed to eat of the holy bread with the other priests; he just could not offer offerings at the altar. A lot of the commands in the Old Testament are external pictures of inward truths. Jesus later made it clear that God’s real concern was purity on the inside, not physical wholeness on the outside. In any event, the passage really isn’t about a “principle” that infertility (even self-caused) is a “defect.” Low sperm count, even if it had been understood then, would not have qualified as a “defect” because the external male organs were not damaged. A vasectomy does not damage the external male organs and thus would not be considered a “defect” under Levitical law. Worldly sex tends to be selfish. Holy sex is unselfish. There is obviously at least one way to be sinful even in the marriage bed or else there would not be the admonition of "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and .... let the marriage bed be undefiled." Heb 13:4 It was not written as an epitaph indicating that "anything goes." Could artificial birth control/sterilization possibly defile the marriage bed? This should be considered.Hebrews 13:4 actually specifically defines what “defiling the marriage bed” means. The passage says, “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” We must be careful not to add to God’s word. What defiles the marriage bed is sex outside the marriage covenant. As for “holy sex” being unselfish-- indeed it is. It is about the mutual celebration of love in each partner giving to the other. The entire book of the Song of Solomon is a celebration of this kind of love. The loving couple does not focus on the conception of children as the focus of their sexual love, but instead on the mutual joy they can bring one another. When there are organizations out there like Couple to Couple League (NFP) and the Billings Method which promote a healthy way of "family planning," why shouldn't a Christian couple consider this as a possibility? We do not know the future and should never presume to know if God will change our hearts in the future. Artificial birth control and sterilization have consequences (the warning lists and contraindications are considerably long as our bodies were not designed to act as if they are pregnant 24/7 for years), some temporary, some permanent, some requiring future surgeries (ie hysterectomy rate after tubal ligation is VERY high - www.tubal.org/VGHPTS.htm ), some dangerous to ourselves and offspring, some emotional, and sometimes fatal.There is no reason why a Christian couple shouldn’t consider all the methods available, and choose the one that they feel is safest and most effective for their particular family, in their particular circumstances. There is no command of the Lord in this matter. It would certainly be unwise for them to choose a method that will be physically harmful to them. But they should research this carefully, and consult several reputable medical sources, before deciding. Just because married couples do not use birth control does not mean they will always have MANY children. Examples: Sarah and Rachel had one or two. Hannah and Mary had six or seven. For some, it will (Susanah Wesley and her 19 offspring, 9 of whom died as infants. She herself the youngest of 25). However, reading Ecc 6:3 "If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, 'Better the miscarriage than he.'"True, some women will not have a lot of children even if they don’t use birth control. I think yours is the voice of reason here, rather than those Quiverfull voices that tell the woman she is somehow cursed of God if her natural fertility is less than another woman’s. I agree that Ecclesiastes 6:3 is a good, balancing verse that many in Quiverfull seem to ignore. Having children is not as important as “that the soul be filled with good.” But if a woman is led to believe that her ABUNDANT fertility is a direct result of God’s favor, what is she to think but that even comparatively less fertility (not to mention actual infertility) signals God’s displeasure? But the message of the Book of Job should speak loud and clear, where it is now often ignored: it is a mistake to equate blessings or lack of blessings with a person’s righteousness or lack thereof. What do we do with the "be fruitful and multiply" commands from God? (Gen 1:28, 9:1; 2:23-24; Matt 19:5) for Jesus came not to erase the OT but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-19). If the Word has not been specifically fulfilled or negated then they would seem obviously to still be in effect (examples: sin of bestiality is only found in OT, but still viewed as sin, whereas the eating of certain foods was sinful in OT,but is allowed, unless a stumbling block, in the NT).God did tell Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply-- and yet Paul was by his own choice, unmarried and childless. Was he disobeying God? Is it not rather that the command is to be considered to be given to the human race as a whole (and as a whole, we are certainly fulfilling it!), but that individuals may be called, one to one thing, one to another, in the Kingdom of God? A God-centered marriage, one where the husband is agape-loving his wife will bear fruit, of many types, including the faithfulness it takes to trust God in family planning. God wants to BLESS us and this includes having children He sends to us. We are incapable of making a baby, only He is, but we are able to deny Him the option. He asks us to choose life and to be fruitful. In what ways will we do so? He gives us the choice.What does it mean to “trust God in family planning”? The passage in Genesis 3 that I referred to, “I will greatly increase your conceptions,” indicates that “trusting God” and “letting the woman’s body conceive as often as it will” may not be synonymous at all. The same passage says that thorns and thistles will be multiplied in the fields. Is a farmer “trusting God” with his farm when he decides to just let it grow as it will, weeds and all? Or is he letting nature dictate what his crop is going to look like? What if “trusting God” actually means praying for wisdom and discernment as to when it is best to use birth control, and when we should actively seek to conceive? Perhaps He desires our “fruitfulness” to be of a different kind than having children, as He did with Paul. Can anyone say Paul was not fruitful? And yet he never had children, and he considered this his gift, with the understanding that it could be a gift also given to women (1 Cor 7:7 & 34). Yes, Paul was single-- but should we tell God that He is not allowed to call a married couple to a life together without children (for a season, perhaps, or even permanently), so that they can be dedicated to some other fruitful work? Is there a passage in scripture where God declares He would never desire this? **** So there it is. Any help anyone can give would be appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on May 31, 2010 19:45:06 GMT -5
This is very good. I don't have a lot to say today because it's Memorial Day and I have not slept AT ALL so higher brain functions won't be reliable. But you explain this very well. You did use 'Omar' instead of 'Onan' in one place though. That should be corrected. We used to say that it is easier to fill an empty glass than empty a full one and refill it -- in other words, some people are so indoctrinated by a lie that one must remove the lie before they can accept the truth. This unfortunately is where a lot of people who believe the anti-birth control arguments are at. They are so indoctrinated with their proof-texted scriptures and facile answers that it is difficult for them to hear another side to it. Hopefully this FAQ will reach some and make sense to them.
|
|
|
Post by seekingtruth on Jun 3, 2010 16:44:19 GMT -5
In replying to the original piece re: Birth Control as “Berean-minded” it was noticed that quite a number of you reacted so strongly in opposition to someone else who is also opposed to the patriarchy movement and the “quiver full” movement (one that mandates women to have as many children as physically possible in subjection to the demands of her husband or patriarchal church/sect) just because that someone (me) has been personally convicted after researching scripture and PP origins and practices. Thank you, Kristen Rosser ~ aka: KR Wordgazer, for your time and study spent on the FAQ and Vyckie, for writing this: “Also ~ I hope that seekingtruth will continue in the discussion here ~ from her post, I can see that she is trying to seek a balanced approach ~ from a biblical standpoint ~ and I really do hope that she and others who read the FAQ can feel comfortable ~ respected and supported ~ as she participates in the discussion here.” I will therefore attempt to further explain -- I did not in the first post due to length, and then waited until the harsh comments about me calmed down. (Interestingly enough, when I post on QF type blogs, they react strongly opposed to the "balanced approach", too) **The reason I mentioned PP is because this organization is what brought about birth control existence in America. A study of PP (formerly Birth Control Review) reveals many things that most Christians would view as evil. Sure, they may do some good things for women, but to me it speaks volumes that this organization would be so outspoken in favor of partial-birth-abortion (you know when the fully developed healthy baby is dangling feet first outside of her/his mommy with the head purposely left inside and her brains sucked out of her, being delivered dead). This is the most barbaric act of birth control and PP promotes its usage/legality. www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/planp.htm PP’s teen education program does promote poor communication between parent and minor, promiscuity, and its founder was certainly on the forefront of that. In a 1957 interview with Mike Wallace she said that infidelity is not a sin. www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsLFt6YRg8E Check it out for yourself or read any of her books; Pivot of Civilization, Woman and the New Race, Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography or articles she wrote including womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/bl_sanger_1924.htm The Case for Birth Control published in the Woman Citizen, Vol. 8, February 23, 1924, pages 17-18, etc. Sanger definitely had a eugenics, Nazi connection, so I really do not appreciate being put-down about believing them (PP) to be an evil organization. www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/Sanger_Nazi_Sterilization.htmlPP continues on its racist venue: www.protectingblacklife.org/pp/teenage_sex.html as the black abortion rate is considerably higher %-wise than whites. I know of women and teenagers who have gone in for pregnancy testing and the first question is “do you want to abort.” So, for ME to personally align with PP by having the same anti-child, eugenics, pro-promiscuity-thinking made me sick inside to ever consider it again. Did I accuse anyone else of it? NO. I said that Scriptures wanted the “unfruitful deeds of darkness to be exposed.” **Worldly sex vs. Holy sex: My thoughts may vary from yours. Mine are: Worldly sex would be outside of the bonds of marriage, acts that are dangerous, unhealthy actions, used with pornography, rape/incest, self-centeredness, etc. Holy sex is found only within a husband-wife marriage, celebrating the wondrous godly design of spouses coming together as one-flesh physically, reflection of love and concern for the other, not desiring harm to the other, and hopefully enjoyable, as well as being open to what God desires for us (if it is that stage of life where we are not fertile or capable of childbearing, whether by nature or choice, God still wants us to enjoy sex with our spouse). **Understanding of what agape love is by the husband towards his wife is important, and was why I posed the question: “Ephesians 5 also tells the husband to agape-love his wife. Is birth control or sterilization part of that agape-love?” And in couples answering this question, I further suggest that putting HER through the physical surgeries or quite possibly harmful oral contraceptives or IUD (which have numerous contraindications) is not really considering her first. Agape love would never dictate to her to have as many children as possible, and in reading the NLQ website we would have to agree that stopping breastfeeding in order to get pregnant more quickly (this is just not safe for the woman or beneficial for the baby) is not agape-love towards the wife either. Have you ever known of a man who doesn’t want children, but the wife does, and he requires HER to use the birth control pill/IUD/patch or have a tubal, irregardless of how it would affect her body then or later on? I do. He does this even when the vasectomy would be much safer for HIM to do, AND should THEY ever change their mind about children it is a much easier and less expensive surgery to correct. We don’t know what we will think about things in the future, so why make permanent decisions? As I stated before, “ hysterectomy rate after tubal ligation is VERY high - www.tubal.org/VGHPTS.htm “ Ask your own GYN what the percentage rate is of their hysterectomy patients as to how many had previously had a tubal ligation. Please also consider 1 Cor 7:3-5 “Let the husband fulfill his duty his wife and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; AND LIKEWISE the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time that you may devote to prayer.” Included in Galatians 5:22-23 self-control is part of the fruit of the Spirit. 1 John 3:19-22 “We shall know by this that we are sure of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him, in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. Beloved if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God; and whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight.” Bottom line; get the facts, pray to God for discernment if you are a Christian, and respond according to what God is telling YOU to do, remembering that we are called to be a “living sacrifice” and each believer’s body is a temple of the Lord (1Cor 6:19-20) and are to “glorify God in your body.” **re: Deut 25:5-10 in the FAQ: “It wasn’t that he didn’t want children; it’s that he wanted children only for his own profit! But the woman could not marry anyone else. His act consigned her to childlessness whether she liked it or not. And it was a great deception for Onan to pretend to do his duty to his brother outwardly, but then to go back on it in the privacy of the home. It was not for simple birth control that Omar was judged by God. It was for fraud, greed, deception and covenant-breaking. The birth control was the means by which the crime was committed. The birth control itself was not the crime.” Gen 38: 9-10 “Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife (Tamar), he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.” It was “what he did” not “what he did not do.” I do agree that Onan’s sins involved fraud, greed, deception and covenant-breaking.(very much like Ananias and Sapphira in Acts which also cost them their lives). Gen 38:14b “(Tamar) saw that Shelah had grown up, and had she had not been given to him as a wife.” Yet, Shelah was not killed nor did he have his sandal removed nor was spat upon. An interesting note is that Jesus came through this lineage, and Tamar is listed in the Messiah’s genealogy (Matt 1:3) (albeit through Tamar‘s father-in-law, ick). **Regarding, “Various other OT scriptures Lev 21:17-20; 22:20-22,24; calls damage to male reproductive organs a "defect" and those with "defect" were not allowed to present offerings. Castration of animals is likewise called a blemish.” The point is that mutilation of one’s body (male or female) via sterilization or even IUD (http://www.birth-control-comparison.info/iudinfo.htm) causes a “defect” which is viewed negatively in scripture. Other scriptures point to the value of seed/sperm (Heb 7:9-10, Job 10:8-11, Lev 20:13,15,16. Do I look down upon someone who has been sterilized? Definitely not. Have I ever heard friends say that they deeply regret their sterilization? Definitely yes. Have friends ever expressed the immense joy of having a baby after having a vasectomy reversal (none of my friends have had a tubal reversal - it is just too difficult and expensive)? A tremendous Yes. **Regarding “faithfulness it takes to trust God in family planning.” and comparing it to “The same passage says that thorns and thistles will be multiplied in the fields.” I am so confused. God’s Word does NOT speak negatively of having children like thorns and thistles, except for Ecc 6:3 "If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, 'Better the miscarriage than he.'" **Regarding fruitfulness. Psalm 105:24 “And the Lord made His people very fruitful. He made them too numerous (and strong) for their foes.” There are obviously a variety of ways to be fruitful for the Lord, bearing/rearing children is only one of them. Re: Paul - since he was not married, this is a mute point other than God wants all Christians to bear fruit. Thank you for letting me reiterate and clarify. Romans 12:9-13 “Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with God's people who are in need. Practice hospitality.”
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 3, 2010 18:56:25 GMT -5
Thanks for your response, Seekingtruth. At the moment I only have time to address this: **Regarding “faithfulness it takes to trust God in family planning.” and comparing it to “The same passage says that thorns and thistles will be multiplied in the fields.” I am so confused. God’s Word does NOT speak negatively of having children like thorns and thistles, except for Ecc 6:3... Please look at Genesis 3:16 again-- Try the KJV or a Hebrew interlinear-- many of the modern translations seem to miss this. Here's a link to an interlinear that might be helpful: www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen3.pdfOne of the consequences of Adam and Eve's sin was that her "conceptions" (in the Hebrew that word does mean getting pregnant) would increase-- and that her sorrow (trouble, difficulty) would increase with it. Then it says that the actual childbirth would be difficult as well. Then in verse 17, to Adam God says that thorns and thistles would be increased and that his difficulty would be great because of it. Yes, there is a difference in that God didn't say the woman's body was "cursed" in the same way the ground was "cursed." But the multiplication of pregnancies was going to be a sorrow. Surely you have seen the health problems that a woman develops when she keeps having pregnancy after pregnancy? It is a sorrow to her body-- she is capable of conceiving beyond the ability of her body to healthily sustain. This is what I think Genesis 3:16 is talking about-- not that the children are like thorns and thistles-- that's not what I meant at all! But is it "trusting God in family planning" to just let this pregnancy-after-pregnancy ability of the woman's body, take its natural course?
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 3, 2010 19:28:33 GMT -5
Thanks for your response, Seekingtruth. At the moment I only have time to address this: **Regarding “faithfulness it takes to trust God in family planning.” and comparing it to “The same passage says that thorns and thistles will be multiplied in the fields.” I am so confused. God’s Word does NOT speak negatively of having children like thorns and thistles, except for Ecc 6:3... Please look at Genesis 3:16 again. One of the consequences of Adam and Eve's sin was that her "conceptions" (in the Hebrew that word does mean getting pregnant) would increase-- and that her sorrow (trouble, difficulty) would increase with it. Then it says that the actual childbirth would be difficult as well. Then in verse 17, to Adam God says that thorns and thistles would be increased and that his difficulty would be great because of it. Yes, there is a difference in that God didn't say the woman's body was "cursed" in the same way the ground was "cursed." But the multiplication of pregnancies was going to be a sorrow. Surely you have seen the health problems that a woman develops when she keeps having pregnancy after pregnancy? It is a sorrow to her body-- she is capable of conceiving beyond the ability of her body to healthily sustain. This is what I think Genesis 3:16 is talking about-- not that the children are like thorns and thistles-- that's not what I meant at all! But is it "trusting God in family planning" to just let this pregnancy-after-pregnancy ability of the woman's body, take its natural course? That is a very good point. And on Adam's side, we as a species have learned to adjust for the problems inherent in growing our daily bread, such as it is. Even just in farming, we have learned how to irrigate and use various forms of pest control to maximize production with less effort. And we learned to let fields lie fallow or rotate crops in order to avoid exhausting the earth and lowering yields. So to suggest that we can affect all of these things that lie under 'the curse' but the one thing we must leave alone is childbearing, and let nature just take it's course no matter what toll it takes on the women and children involved, rings false. If a couple wants a huge family in spite of the difficulties inherent in such a lifestyle, both physically and emotionally, then by all means choose to do so. I think it can be a very irresponsible choice if it means impoverishment of body, mind, and soul for either/or parents and children involved. But please, it is a choice couples can choose to make for themselves. But when scriptures are used to justify a position that this is the only correct choice and all other choices are invalid and sinful before God, that is where I must call them out. Own the choices you make, don't blame God for them. He didn't set this whole thing up for you, you chose to do it for your own reasons. Own your decisions, for good or ill. I can respect that. I might disagree heartily with it, but I can respect the fact that an adult made a choice and didn't just follow after a teacher who allegedly had THE LINE on what the scriptures 'really mean'. All scripture requires interpretation at some level. There's only two ways you can do that. Either read and discern for yourself with your own understanding and education whatever that may be, or find a teacher you like and trust and let them do it for you, taking the chance that the teacher may not have it right either. If any teacher stands up and says that they are the ones who have the pure line on what any scripture absolutely means then they are misguided at best. Honestly I think God honors the sincerity and the effort of honest people trying to understand rightly and do the right thing above those who slavishly follow a teacher who avows that their take on it all is the one and true only way to see it and everyone who disagrees is sinning/displeasing to God. "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 3, 2010 20:57:28 GMT -5
I want to be very clear that when I quoted this: I was not referring to actual people being stupid. I was relating it to how we filter scripture through our own flawed understanding as mortals on this earth as opposed to whatever God is ultimately telling us. This is especially so in relation to the subjects we are all discussing here on this forum. Mortals vis a vis God. Not stupid people vis a vis intelligent people.
|
|
em
Full Member
Posts: 176
|
Post by em on Jun 3, 2010 21:54:02 GMT -5
I want to be very clear that when I quoted this: I was not referring to actual people being stupid. I was relating it to how we filter scripture through our own flawed understanding as mortals on this earth as opposed to whatever God is ultimately telling us. This is especially so in relation to the subjects we are all discussing here on this forum. Mortals vis a vis God. Not stupid people vis a vis intelligent people. And this is the biggest problem with interpreting the bible in such a manner as to believe this is absolutely 100% what it means and if you don't follow it bad shit will happen. The bible was written by man. It was translated from the word of God ... and then translated into another language many years later. There's a distinction to made, I think. I probably don't make any sense (it's been a rough couple of days, I just got home from work, and I'm tired), but you made the point much better than I ever could, Nikita.
|
|
|
Post by justme on Jun 4, 2010 12:12:28 GMT -5
I hope that anyone seeking truth will educate themselves on what "partial-birth abortion" really is. It was never used lightly, it allowed parents to hold and say goodbye to their anencephalic babies instead of them being cut up. This article from a British mother and doctor explains it better than I could (there are graphic details though): goodenoughmummy.typepad.com/good_enough_mum/2007/05/intact_dilatati.html
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 4, 2010 14:20:34 GMT -5
Addressing another of Seekingtruth's points:
She said:
I do agree that Onan’s sins involved fraud, greed, deception and covenant-breaking.(very much like Ananias and Sapphira in Acts which also cost them their lives). Gen 38:14b “(Tamar) saw that Shelah had grown up, and had she had not been given to him as a wife.” Yet, Shelah was not killed nor did he have his sandal removed nor was spat upon. An interesting note is that Jesus came through this lineage, and Tamar is listed in the Messiah’s genealogy (Matt 1:3) (albeit through Tamar‘s father-in-law, ick).
The part about removing the sandal and spitting was part of the law given through Moses. This story is about Judah-- 600 or more years prior to Moses. The custom of having the brother of the deceased marry the widow was clearly already in place, as was the notion of covenant-keeping (we see it already in the time of Abraham), but I think it's an anachronistic reading to expect the specific penality Moses gave for refusing to marry your brother's widow, to appear in the Judah-Tamar story. The fact that Shelah did not have his sandal removed and was not spat upon, has no significance, therefore-- the penalty of the law was not yet in place. The fact that he was not killed-- well, what was it that he wasn't killed for? True, he didn't spill his seed on the ground, but he also didn't marry her and then break his covenant with her. Which thing that he didn't do, resulted in his not being punished? I think that insisting that it had to have been that he didn't spill his seed on the ground, is assuming too much. Clearly the culture knew about this form of birth control, because Onan used it. Can we really assume that Onan is the only one who ever used it, because he was the only one ever mentioned as using it? If God was punishing men right and left for spilling their seed on the ground, the Bible neglects to mention it-- nor is there any specific prohibition against this action anywhere in Scripture. If God didn't want men to spill their seed on the ground, wouldn't He have taken the trouble to give an express command about it, rather than just slapping a penalty on someone without warning?
However, there are lots of prohibitions against covenant-breaking, and lots of expressions of God's displeasure over covenant-breaking, throughout Scripture. Abraham clearly knew what a solemn thing a covenant was, as did his sons and grandsons. What Onan did was clearly a very blatant form of covenant breaking-- which is clearly prohibited by Scripture. I'd rather assume the penalty was for breaking a known prohibition than an unmentioned (and never mentioned again) one.
|
|