|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on May 24, 2010 6:57:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on May 24, 2010 10:46:32 GMT -5
Excellently done, KR. I really think that this is an important series.
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on May 24, 2010 12:41:27 GMT -5
Yes, thanks for writing this. I have already emailed a link to a friend I hope will read it thoughtfully.
This whole new trend in Christianity is so crazy to me! My Baptist grandma told me with derision how those crazy Catholics though they were supposed to advance the kingdom by having babies instead of by sharing the story of Jesus! She was being rude and discriminatory in the way she put things, but theologically she had a point.
Now it is folks from my grandma's tradition that want to increase the number of Christians by biological procreation. Grandma would be shaking her head in disbelief is she were here to see it.
|
|
valsa
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by valsa on May 24, 2010 13:28:10 GMT -5
Well, it certainly is easiest if you start indoctrinating them young...
I honestly think this is partially a backlash from growing tolerance in the U.S. to people of other faiths and lifestyles. I imagine there’s not as much fear-based pressure to birth an army for god if everyone around you is already Christian (I’m guessing it’s preferable that they’re “your kind” of Christians) But once you’re surrounded by people who are all different faiths, I’m sure it’s easy to feel like you’re “under attack” and that you need to bolster your side of the fight by having a lot of kids to raise in your faith. Too bad it’s a fight that no one else seems to know about.
|
|
|
Post by humbletigger on May 24, 2010 15:03:05 GMT -5
And the truly ironic part is that there is no better way to guarantee your children will turn away from your faith than by making it a total domination of every aspect of their young lives.
|
|
|
Post by denelian on May 24, 2010 22:08:33 GMT -5
being a non-Christian, i have studied the Bible religiously [pun intended] and have come to the same conclusions. but whenever i pointed them out to people, i was told i was wrong, that only a "True Christian" can read the Bible and correctly "interpret" it's meaning. and when i asked about *that* - because i'm told that the Bible is the "true, inerrant and exact word of God", i'm told i just DON'T UNDERSTAND.
sigh.
so, thank you! it's A) good to know that i was right [so far as that goes] and B) have a source i can point to! i hope i can get through to a few people
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 24, 2010 22:38:59 GMT -5
being a non-Christian, i have studied the Bible religiously [pun intended] and have come to the same conclusions. but whenever i pointed them out to people, i was told i was wrong, that only a "True Christian" can read the Bible and correctly "interpret" it's meaning. and when i asked about *that* - because i'm told that the Bible is the "true, inerrant and exact word of God", i'm told i just DON'T UNDERSTAND. sigh. so, thank you! it's A) good to know that i was right [so far as that goes] and B) have a source i can point to! i hope i can get through to a few people Oh, my word, Denelian. I'm not sure how much of an impression my FAQ will make, since people who believe like this tend to use a completely different principle of interpretation (however it reads to them, without any reference to culture, history or context, is the "true" meaning). Frankly, your friend is more likely to question whether I'm a true Christian than whether her reading is correct-- but if she is open at all to the method I use, the "Quiverfull and the Bible" FAQ linked to in that post would be a good introduction to more logical, consistent interpretation principles. But even if she isn't open to that, here's a passage that even she will have trouble getting around: Luke 4:9-12. "And he [the devil] set him [Jesus] on the pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, 'If thou be the son of God, cast thyself down from hence, for it is written, He shall give His angels charge over thee. . .' And Jesus answering said unto him, 'It is said, thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.'" The "plain sense" crowd and I should be in agreement on this-- the Bible says not to foolishly expose yourself to risk of death, as if God somehow owes you a divine intervention. Your friend should pray for a miracle that changes her condition, not try to force God to give her a miracle by risking her life. I hope that helps. It's very worrisome, when someone takes a position like your friend has taken. Edited to add: Oh! And thanks, everyone, for your nice comments! ;D
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on May 25, 2010 5:16:50 GMT -5
Outstanding article. Thanks, kr.
|
|
maicde
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by maicde on May 25, 2010 8:30:47 GMT -5
I'm not a theologian, but I've come to the conclusion that people can twist and fanagle any verse to say what they want it to say. They then act (and believe) that it is THE way and the ONLY way. This phenomenon is what's turned me off to Christianity, even though I still call myself a "Christian." To me, the "bottom line" of Christianity is to love one another, do unto others as you would have them do onto you, and to live your OWN life in peace, and not cause others harm or grief (physically, mentally, emotionally). To some "Christians", that is not enough. Unless you can quote biblical verses, take them out of context, misrepresent them for your own selfish personal, social, or political agenda, then you are not a "good" Christian, which leads me back to why I am so out of funk with the kind of "Christianity" I grew up with. Theologians who study religions, many religions, who know the various versions of the so-called "Christian" bible, cannot agree on things; I don't know how people with less comprehensive religious education can interpret exactly what each biblical verse says and means (and that's not even taking into account what bible they are even using). Interesting to note how all of the so-called "good" Christians who "eschew everything modern and technology" partake of it when they need to. There is zero doubt that Josie Duggar (and most likely, Michelle Duggar) would not be here today if not for modern medicine. The Duggars, especially, speak from both sides of their mouth, but their devotees are blind to that. Thank you for the very well-written and thought-provoking article.
|
|
maicde
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by maicde on May 25, 2010 8:46:42 GMT -5
And the truly ironic part is that there is no better way to guarantee your children will turn away from your faith than by making it a total domination of every aspect of their young lives. You are 1000% right on that!
|
|
|
Post by bananacat on May 25, 2010 8:55:07 GMT -5
I have always been bothered with the reasoning that if something is a blessing, you should try to get as many as you can. For example, some within the QF movement say that if wealth is good, more wealth is better and the same applies to children. But they are wrong! To much wealth is bad for almost anybody, but especially for Christians. It says somewhere in the Bible that it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into Heaven. So clearly wealth is good, but too much wealth is bad. And the same can certainly apply to children. The number of children that are "too many" will vary within each family, but it's certainly not always better to have more.
|
|
valsa
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by valsa on May 25, 2010 13:40:41 GMT -5
So clearly wealth is good, but too much wealth is bad. And the same can certainly apply to children. The number of children that are "too many" will vary within each family, but it's certainly not always better to have more. I can't remember whether I read it on this site or another one related to the Duggars, but a poster once pointed out something that I thought was pretty brilliant. A friend of their's was involved with archery and, when the poster explained the whole "arrows=children/quiverfull" thing to him, he pointed out that if you had too many arrows jammed in your quiver, you'd be unable to get any of them out. I thought that was a beautiful way to, using QF's own arrow analogy, point out that while having a quiver full of arrows is good, having too many prevents you from utilizing those arrows for the whole purpose you had them for.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on May 25, 2010 13:46:15 GMT -5
So clearly wealth is good, but too much wealth is bad. And the same can certainly apply to children. The number of children that are "too many" will vary within each family, but it's certainly not always better to have more. I can't remember whether I read it on this site or another one related to the Duggars, but a poster once pointed out something that I thought was pretty brilliant. A friend of their's was involved with archery and, when the poster explained the whole "arrows=children/quiverfull" thing to him, he pointed out that if you had too many arrows jammed in your quiver, you'd be unable to get any of them out. I thought that was a beautiful way to, using QF's own arrow analogy, point out that while having a quiver full of arrows is good, having too many prevents you from utilizing those arrows for the whole purpose you had them for. That's a nice analogy as far as it goes... but children aren't really tools to fulfill the purposes of the parents either, they are their own selves. Still, turning QF imagery on itself is a nice trick.
|
|
|
Post by seekingtruth on May 25, 2010 14:23:09 GMT -5
Thank you for writing the article -- very thoughtful indeed. The comments about it are also very well pointed. I have some thoughts about this, too, that that have evolved over the past 20+ years. And I, too, am fed up with the patriarchy movement and its domination of women, but still have considerations about the scripture, as you obviously do, viewing your nicely written article. I used to be on the pill. 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) Ephesians 5 also tells the husband to agape-love his wife. Is birth control or sterilization part of that agape-love? 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) 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. 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. 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. 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.'" My thought is that if a couple is convicted in their heart about birth control and decide to wean themselves from it that the NFP or Billings Method can be quite helpful and accurate. Bodies are not harmed from these "methods." If a couple uses these methods with a selfish attitude (it IS the heart that God looks upon) it will still be sin, but the consequences will be negatively significant like those of using unnatural methods (incl sterilization). 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). If a husband is adamant about not having children and his wife agrees OR vice versa, then HE should be the one taking the steps to prevent such so that his wife does not suffer all of the ramifications, HE should show agape "put-her-first" love... and because vasectomies are easily reversed for later on in life if they change their mind or to protect his prostate. 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.
|
|
valsa
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by valsa on May 25, 2010 15:14:29 GMT -5
I know that, but most QF people I've talked to say that children have a purpose- anywhere from being soldiers in the Army of God (thankfully, that's an extreme minority) to just being "blessings".
I'll let someone else address the rest of your post, if they wish, but I have to speak up about this. I LOVE Planned Parenthood. I go to them because I don't have health insurance and they offer full gynecological services. I have been to both regular gynecologists (when I had insurance), free clinics, and PP, and the staff at the PP was, by far, the kindest, most professional, and best of all three.
Also, I've never experienced them promoting promiscuous behavior at all and neither have any of the women I know who go there. If anything, some of the workers there are a little overzealous about pushing BC and condoms (to sexually active women), precisely because they want to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDS.
I think calling them evil dismisses the good they do, particularly because I'm not entirely sure you know what you're talking about when it comes to PP.
|
|
|
Post by avavirginia on May 25, 2010 15:55:30 GMT -5
Thank you KR for this wonderfully well written article!
I studied with the Bill Gothard midwifery training program and this was a major topic, of course. It was the Scriptures themselves that led me to give up "letting the Lord plan my family". I still value the sentiment of a large happy family but we have a medium sized happy family instead ;D
|
|
|
Post by rosiegirl on May 25, 2010 16:23:15 GMT -5
I love it when people call PP evil, simply because they dont agree with their mission statement: trying to keep women of all walks of life, safe. They offer a range of female oriented services, especially to women WITHOUT insurance, which is a very much needed thing.
And I know a woman who has been on artificial BC for YEARS and it has never done harm to her body. ALL women are different. But all you hear about is the women whose bodies have been harmfully affected, because they're the ones that scream the loudest. You cant lump all of them into one barrel specifically to suit your own agenda.
And your thing about the man assuming all of the responsibility of BC is a bit ridiculous; the whole point of BC is to give women control of their own bodies, which is something that was hard, hard won; not to turn around and give it right back to men. This idea that women need to be coddled and taken care of by men is a very, dare I say, ignorant and stupid way to live life.
And how are you defining "holy sex"? Holy sex is only if you're having children? What kind of sense is that? Moreover, you say that men should be the ones getting a vasectomy for BC, but they should get it reversed to protect their prostate? Are you saying that married couples should never have sex unless its to procreate? What would be the point of a vasectomy, then?
|
|
|
Post by jemand on May 25, 2010 16:44:34 GMT -5
And I know a woman who has been on artificial BC for YEARS and it has never done harm to her body. ALL women are different. But all you hear about is the women whose bodies have been harmfully affected, because they're the ones that scream the loudest. Well... yes... but you can't hardly blame someone who's been hurt being upset at what hurt them. BUT, I do think there is more than just that, I think there is a social amplifying effect going, promoting voices backing a traditional "safe" feeling mentality, or something that feels nostalgic a bit and thus nicer. Literally billions of women have been harmed by childbearing, many of them without actually WANTING to have children all that much, and many more unnecessarily harmed because while children were wanted, care to reduce risks was considered unnecessary or frivolous. Those voices by rights should be just as loud, maybe even louder than those who have bad reactions to hormonal birth control! But no, instead of a social loudspeaker effect, there's a hush, hush dampening effect. So... I don't think it's the fault of the women themselves for being upset, or even for screaming, heck without some of that screaming nobody would have researched to get more options, some with fewer side effects and others which fit different physiologies much better! But I do wish there were more BC options for men... some women don't react well to pregnancy OR any current birth control options, but there aren't really many options for men. Secondly, I don't see why in principle a man wouldn't be interested in taking responsibility for his own fertility just like any woman might, and the empowering effect of BC for women, while possibly muted for men due to biological differences of pregnancy, would still I think grant a measure of psychological peace that would definitely be worth it. But this is a rather parenthetical discussion to the main topic here I think.
|
|
valsa
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by valsa on May 25, 2010 17:13:51 GMT -5
Birth control pills are somewhat of a tricky subject. I've known women who experienced minor bad side effects for no apparent reason and I do sympathize with them. I, myself, can't take BC pills because they upset my stomach and I get... "moody".
However, some women I can't bring myself to sympathize with. My own stepsister trashes the pill, because she got pregnant on it. However, she ignores the fact she was also taking antibiotics at the time and didn't read the pamphlet that comes with the BC, which would have informed her that birth control and antibiotics don't mix.
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on May 25, 2010 18:13:00 GMT -5
I do not understand how taking birth control allies a person with PP.
|
|
|
Post by rosiegirl on May 25, 2010 18:48:50 GMT -5
And I know a woman who has been on artificial BC for YEARS and it has never done harm to her body. ALL women are different. But all you hear about is the women whose bodies have been harmfully affected, because they're the ones that scream the loudest. Well... yes... but you can't hardly blame someone who's been hurt being upset at what hurt them. BUT, I do think there is more than just that, I think there is a social amplifying effect going, promoting voices backing a traditional "safe" feeling mentality, or something that feels nostalgic a bit and thus nicer. Literally billions of women have been harmed by childbearing, many of them without actually WANTING to have children all that much, and many more unnecessarily harmed because while children were wanted, care to reduce risks was considered unnecessary or frivolous. Those voices by rights should be just as loud, maybe even louder than those who have bad reactions to hormonal birth control! But no, instead of a social loudspeaker effect, there's a hush, hush dampening effect. So... I don't think it's the fault of the women themselves for being upset, or even for screaming, heck without some of that screaming nobody would have researched to get more options, some with fewer side effects and others which fit different physiologies much better! But I do wish there were more BC options for men... some women don't react well to pregnancy OR any current birth control options, but there aren't really many options for men. Secondly, I don't see why in principle a man wouldn't be interested in taking responsibility for his own fertility just like any woman might, and the empowering effect of BC for women, while possibly muted for men due to biological differences of pregnancy, would still I think grant a measure of psychological peace that would definitely be worth it. But this is a rather parenthetical discussion to the main topic here I think. And this is very important. Stuff like what was written above is intended to guilt people into one way of thinking or living. "Well, you dont have to have kids, but you're rejecting gods blessings, do you really want to do that?" or "You CAN sterilize yourself or take action to control your fertility, but you're going to invoke gods punishment." Some loving god, huh? There is a very large world out there outside of ones own views and ideology. People need to realize that. I dont understand why it would be a bad thing to ally yourself with PP anyway; they do so much good for low income, not as well off women. "Well, they encourage promiscuity!" Actually, there's been studies that those who are armed with sex education and protection are no more sexually active, it just arms them to defend themselves against situations they could otherwise avoid. I've had this theory for awhile now that the church and government in particular want to keep women ignorant and stupid so as to keep them in line. A woman who gets pregnant early on is less likely to join the workforce or get a better education. They're less likely to do something like Vyckie did, because its safer and easier to remain where they are. Thats why they love abstinence only education; they know it doesnt work. They dont hate teen pregnancies, they love them. A woman educated in her fertility usually makes more informed choices, and is harder to control in that manner, at least from what I noticed.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on May 25, 2010 19:01:26 GMT -5
I dont understand why it would be a bad thing to ally yourself with PP anyway; they do so much good for low income, not as well off women. "Well, they encourage promiscuity!" Actually, there's been studies that those who are armed with sex education and protection are no more sexually active, it just arms them to defend themselves against situations they could otherwise avoid. This reminds me of my earlier exchange with valsa... sometimes when you are pointing out the flaws in wrong conclusions there are problems *both* with the premise AND the logic. premise: Aligning with PP is bad. logic: BC is bad because it's aligning with PP. Neither of those seems to follow or be sound. premise: children are tools logic: you want as many arrow-tools as possible. Again, the premise is bad and the logic *also* bad. Bad logic is more diffuse, would apply to more topics in one's life, so in a way one could argue it was worse, but on the other hand, having an unsound premise means it's impossible to get *anywhere* on a particular subject at all, so one could argue it was worse too. In any case, sometimes arguments fail badly on all levels... However, I'm not using supertight logic theory here. I just think that just pointing out one hole doesn't mean the poster believes everything else is sound.
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on May 25, 2010 20:32:45 GMT -5
It doesn't matter to me whether allying with PP is bad or not, I haven't gotten that far in the argument. Why would taking BC ally a person with PP?
|
|
valsa
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by valsa on May 25, 2010 21:34:24 GMT -5
There is no reason. At least not for a logically thinking person who isn't looking for reasons to dismiss BC.
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on May 25, 2010 21:36:36 GMT -5
It doesn't matter to me whether allying with PP is bad or not, I haven't gotten that far in the argument. Why would taking BC ally a person with PP? Because it's thanks to Planned Parenthood and its predecessor the Birth Control League that we have access to birth control. inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blthepill.htmSanger was the founder of PP. She was also anti-abortion, more on health grounds than moral ones I think, which is why she was so determined to get access to birth control for women. Anyway, I can understand why someone might think that using BC would ally a person with PP, because it's unlikely that without PP or a similar organization the option would be available.
|
|