menageriekeeper
Active Member
I think it is more that the text implies in the case of all but Paul. Paul tells us himself that he is unmarried(and I would presume childless 
) in I Corinthians 7:8.
) in I Corinthians 7:8.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Chosen Childlessness
- Thread starter PastorSBC1303
- Start date
"While I'll agree with the statement, "a society that is forgoingbabies in large numbers for the sake of big houses and tripst to vegas is problably not a healty society". How can you presume that everyone who choses being childless has done it just for materialistic reasons?"------------------------------------------------------
Now Manag, you know I did not say EVERYONE.
Now Manag, you know I did not say EVERYONE.
PastorSBC1303
Active Member
How does the text imply that for Timothy, Mary, Martha and Lazarus?
menageriekeeper
Active Member
Just wanta make work tonight huh, PSBC?
Okay, for Timothy the Bible speaks of his mother and I believe his grandmother, but not ever a wife. Since he was quite important to Paul, I believe if there would have been one around there would have been mention of her somewhere in all the letters that Timothy himself is mentioned. (don't make me list 'em)
As for Mary, Martha and Lazurus. If any of them had been married Mary and Martha wouldn't have been serving(as in meals) when Jesus were there visiting. If Lazurus were married it would have been his wife's place to prepare and serve the meal. Martha wouldn't have had anything to complain about when Mary was listening to Jesus. If Mary or Martha had been married, they would have been serving in their own homes or they would have been mentioned along with their husbands, not their brother. In those times women were mostly identified by the man responsible for thier care, not by themselves singley.
Good 'nuff?
Okay, for Timothy the Bible speaks of his mother and I believe his grandmother, but not ever a wife. Since he was quite important to Paul, I believe if there would have been one around there would have been mention of her somewhere in all the letters that Timothy himself is mentioned. (don't make me list 'em)
As for Mary, Martha and Lazurus. If any of them had been married Mary and Martha wouldn't have been serving(as in meals) when Jesus were there visiting. If Lazurus were married it would have been his wife's place to prepare and serve the meal. Martha wouldn't have had anything to complain about when Mary was listening to Jesus. If Mary or Martha had been married, they would have been serving in their own homes or they would have been mentioned along with their husbands, not their brother. In those times women were mostly identified by the man responsible for thier care, not by themselves singley.
Good 'nuff?
PastorSBC1303
Active Member
I do not think any of it is strong enough to say that they were single/childless. I think it is best to stay silent on issues the Bible does not address.
I actually agree with a lot of you have posted on this thread...I just think it is dangerous ground to start speculating or implying things from the text that are not real clear.
Besides, a little work never hurt anyone
I actually agree with a lot of you have posted on this thread...I just think it is dangerous ground to start speculating or implying things from the text that are not real clear.
Besides, a little work never hurt anyone
menageriekeeper
Active Member
Now that is an interesting idea, Aaron. I'll have to think about that for a while.
PSBC, I really didn't think I was giving doctrine lessons, only my opinion. As for motives for being single or childless, the only one who tells us clearly is Paul.
I do agree with you here:
PSBC, I really didn't think I was giving doctrine lessons, only my opinion. As for motives for being single or childless, the only one who tells us clearly is Paul.
I do agree with you here:
and will henceforth attempt to restrain myself.
PastorSBC1303
Active Member
So does that mean your opinion and doctrine are different?
menageriekeeper
Active Member
Only occasionally!
Pete Richert
New Member
Whether it is biblical or not, it is REALLY bad for Social Security.
menageriekeeper
Active Member
Okay Aaron, I've thought about your comment that God didn't put Adam and Eve together to be childless and can't find any hint in the first chapters of Genesis that holds any command from God for them to have children. God commanded Noah and his family to be fruitful and multiply, but he left it open ended as to just how fruitful he expected them to be.
As for Christ's doctrine on marriage I find no mention of children. What I have found is this: Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way, otheres were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this shold accept it." Matt 19:11-12
Nothing here is said about children, but quite a bit about marriage. The preceding verses spoke about adultry and divorce(as in don't do either).
The part about "in the begining" was a warning about divorce, not about childbearing(or the lack thereof).
Therefore I am back with my original premise that God has left it up to us whether or not we wish to have children.
------------------------------------------------
Pete, if I had a dime for everytime I've heard someone say SS was going broke, my retirement would be in the bank!
As for Christ's doctrine on marriage I find no mention of children. What I have found is this: Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way, otheres were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this shold accept it." Matt 19:11-12
Nothing here is said about children, but quite a bit about marriage. The preceding verses spoke about adultry and divorce(as in don't do either).
The part about "in the begining" was a warning about divorce, not about childbearing(or the lack thereof).
Therefore I am back with my original premise that God has left it up to us whether or not we wish to have children.
------------------------------------------------
Pete, if I had a dime for everytime I've heard someone say SS was going broke, my retirement would be in the bank!
F
Filmproducer
Guest
And as I said it can only be achieved by chemical and surgical means, which is evil.
First of all, I have not read the entire thread. so I apologize, if I am being redundant.
What about those of us, who have multiplied, (I have 2), but have used surgical means to prevent pregnancy out of necessity? I mean, I had life threatening complications after my daughter was born. If I have another child the chances are great that I will not survive. I cannot use any BC pill due to blood clots, so I chose to have a tubal ligation. How is that evil? Especially after we prayed about it, and God gave me piece of mind.
Or do you mean evil only in the sense that if 50% of couples decided not to have children it would be evil?
First of all, I have not read the entire thread. so I apologize, if I am being redundant.
What about those of us, who have multiplied, (I have 2), but have used surgical means to prevent pregnancy out of necessity? I mean, I had life threatening complications after my daughter was born. If I have another child the chances are great that I will not survive. I cannot use any BC pill due to blood clots, so I chose to have a tubal ligation. How is that evil? Especially after we prayed about it, and God gave me piece of mind.
Or do you mean evil only in the sense that if 50% of couples decided not to have children it would be evil?
F
Filmproducer
Guest
I agree 100%.
You haven't read the whole post so you are fogiven. I thought the post said we would be at 50 childlessness in several years, but I was mistaken, which I already admited. It said childlessness would increase by 50 percent. My comment was that if we ever became a society with 50 percent childessness, that would be evil. And it could only be accomplished by BCP's and surgical (abortion). Nothing wrong with a ligation.
F
Filmproducer
Guest
Ok, thanks Bunyon. I should have read the entire thread first.
Perhaps Genesis 1:27,28 - "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
See rl's post above.
As for Christ's doctrine on marriage I find no mention of children.
It's written in Gen. 1, which is the passage to which Christ appealed.
The part about "in the begining" was a warning about divorce, not about childbearing(or the lack thereof).
Christ was saying that divorce was never God's original design, heavy emphasis on God's original design. If you have questions about God's purposes and plans for married couples, go back to God's original design for it.
Paul included it in his command for young widows to remarry, (1 Tim. 5:14).
menageriekeeper
Active Member
Okay, I admit it, I failed to read the entire creation passage and only read what was directly concerning the creation of Adam and Eve themselves.
I see your point about "God's original design", but not totally sure I agree that He intended for us to continue having baby after baby.
I'd love to go into the Timothy passage, but I have no time! Maybe this evening or tomorrow.
I see your point about "God's original design", but not totally sure I agree that He intended for us to continue having baby after baby.
I'd love to go into the Timothy passage, but I have no time! Maybe this evening or tomorrow.
menageriekeeper:
I think something else to keep in mind is that Paul writes that some are given the gift of singleness. I think if that is true, then they were also given the gift of childlessness
When I've read discussions of this topic, people always bring up those that are barren, or those that are single etc. I think the emphasis is on the deliberate and not just on the childlessness.
I think something else to keep in mind is that Paul writes that some are given the gift of singleness. I think if that is true, then they were also given the gift of childlessness
When I've read discussions of this topic, people always bring up those that are barren, or those that are single etc. I think the emphasis is on the deliberate and not just on the childlessness.
[/QUOTE]
I will have to take exception with this statement. We have chosen not to have children. We are both mature adults. There is nothing in our lifestyle to indicate immaturity as a characteristic. Various nieces and nephews stay overnight at our house every weekend and we seem to be quite competent to care for them. We don't have a big screen TV, a boat, or a summer place on the lake. We are generous with our resources. There has never been a time when I "wanted" children. I am quite confident that the earth is "replentished".