Contraception

"I have eight children. My wife isn't an emotional physical wreck."

In fact, I'm assuming your older kids are learning early how to be parents themselves...taking on a lot of the responsibility in the house by helping out with the younger kids?

I recall a documentary on Health channel or something that that interviewed a large family. Their system was awesome: Each of the younger children depend on one older child to help them get dressed, bathed, fed, etc. When the younger child was old enough to care for him/herself, they took on the responsibility of a younger sibling.

When the mother had a new baby, she cared for it while it was nursing. Then the baby went to another child in the family who cared for him.

The mother was the overall ruler when it came to the childrens' need...dealing with disputes, etc. But the kids were angels. They knew how to act in public. And the father was head of the entire house. That's the way it should be (biblically...not just an opinion)

I was always told by my former pastor and his wife that I was too strict (his grandkids ran in church...an act I was taught never to do and passed on to my kids...his adult kids weren't that well-behaved in church, either LOL!). I had my eyes on my kids every second in church and in public. When waiting in line, I gave them a specific spot (tile square, for instance) to stand in. As long as they know their limitations, they are great at obeying. But parents don't always set limitations and it wears them out when the Kids get older.

I don't think of myself as a supermom...I only have two kids. Effective parenting doesn't take a lot of effort. it takes a lot of attention and time...and on-the-spot discipline as soon as necessary.

My kids know better than to ask for something in the store. if they didn't put it on the list at home, they're not getting it. They know this. It's always been a rule in our house because I hated watching kids throw fits and Mommies giving in by handing them a treat to shut them up. I refused to be manipulated by my 6 month old. LOL!

There's nothing wrong with giving your kids responsibility. There's nothing wrong with holding back on the shiny toys and sugary snacks.

 

4His,

We are dealing with generalities, not specific cases.

God created male and female to marry. And if they do what comes natural for his creation to do, they will have sex.

The created laws of nature are such that two people who have sex often will have children.

Pretty simple.

Modern birth control was outlawed in the 1800s by the Comstock law.

For some reason, when America was still governed by a Christian worldview, birth control was seen to be a sin. Hmmm.

Today it isn't. Hmmm.

The Bible isn't as silent as you think, because the normal course of God's creative act is to produce offspring for those who have sex.

 

Victory,

Thanks for your observations and thoughts.

What you said is exactly right. My older kids supervise and care for the younger ones.

In public, my kids don't run wild.

In restaurants, they know how to sit down and behave.

In grocery stores, they have never thrown a tantrum.

We give each of our children an allowance. From that allowance they must tithe, buy gifts, buy clothes, buy bathroom supplies, etc.

They don't beg for money, because they have it and have to manage it!

Appreciated your affirmation. Thanks.

 

I am amazed. The stuff I read on this board is unbelieveable. Life was better under the Comstock Law? Why not revoke women's suffrage while we are at it. Besides, they'll all be home pregnant and having babies, much too busy to vote.

Maybe we should set up separate schools for blacks and Indians while we are at it. God knows, they are happier with their own kind.

I got a news flash for you . . . the good old days were not very good.

 

Eugenicists would have been in favor of your separate school for blacks and Indians. They were also the ones that wanted the lower grade folks to stop having children. Of course, Maraget Sanger just wanted women to be free to have sex with whomever, wherever.

So is society better off living under a biblical worldview or is it better off living under today's worldview?

BTW, I never said life was better under the Comstock Law. It's a little hard to compare life in the 1800s with life in the 2000s. But would we be better off in a society that didn't allow "no fault" divorce? A society that didn't hand out condoms to junior high students? A society that didn't condone sexual activity among the unmarried?

No, the good old days were not very good, in terms of modern conveniences. But today's days are not very good with them.

 

If the Bible is not silent prove to me from Scripture, that birth control is a sin! You have yet to do so!

Yes it is part of marriage, and it is part of God's creative act, but if children are not born it is not a sin! Where does it say that it is!

Who cares about modern birth control, it possible that even the society back then could have been wrong. And they did not have as much of a Christian worldview than you think they did.

Why can't any of you meet the burden of proof. All you do is claim everyone who practices birth control are in sin. Where is the Scripture to support your claims.

I do not deny children are blessing. I do not deny that they come as part of marriage. But I see NO biblical evidence one way or the other regarding birth control.

You can have your preferances in this matter, but stand in judgment, of other Christians where the Bible is silent, is falt out wrong.

 

Once again:

I'm still waiting.

 

Victory in Jesus,

I agree with you.

Some of what you said though, is why I disagree with Paul. I don't think children should be raising children. You can give a child responsibility without having them replace their own parent.

Paul33 - Giving love in marriage IS unselfish - however - asking a woman to go through 8 or 9 years pregnant so you can "give yourself" to her whenever you get a sexual urge is NOT unselfish.

Pregnancy is a beautiful thing, but it IS a hard thing physically.

 

A Georgia family with 5 children under 6 years old lost several of their children to the state when the 18 month old, being 'watched' by a 5 year old, climbed onto the kitchen counter and scalded herself in the sink. She had 2nd and 3rd degree burns.

I seriously agree that parents should be responsible for the children they birth. I can understand asking a 14 year old to watch the 8 year old while mom runs to the store.

 

Even when my daughter was legally old enough to watch her little brother, I was aware that letting her do so was not safe.

In the event of an accident or a fire- a child can't rush a younger sibling to the doctor, and no matter how "well trained" and "responsible" the older child may be - in times of panic they may waste valuable time calling Mom and Dad when they should have been calling 9-11.

Younger siblings - no matter how well trained they are - often give older siblings a hard time and use that "You aren't my mother," line when Mom and Dad aren't around to enforce the authority role.

God gave the kids to Mom and Dad, not to the siblings. In this world we think nothing of saying, "children shouldn't raise children," when we talk about teen pregnancy, but we try to justify children raising children if it is taking the load off Mom and Dad.

The world is full of Pedophiles, Serial Killers, Burglars and Thieves.

 

Paul33,

I'm not totally against large families. If you have the time and the money to provide with them and have a relationship with them, that is wonderful and I praise God that you can do it.

However - MANY can't. I think it is terribly wrong of someone to label those who can't as "sinful" for being responsible.

I used to do Christian work via a Christian-owned Community Center on the poverty striken side of a large city. It was the most eye-opening experience of my life.

Americans love to think that if someone is poor in America they just didn't try. That is not true. There are parents in this country who, for whatever reasons, are working at minimum wage or almost minimum wage jobs; and since that doesn't pay for food and housing for families of 8 - many of them are working two or three jobs just to feed their children.

At this community center we offered sandwiches as snacks because near the end of the month the foodstamps and the paychecks had run out, but the bills and hunger didn't.

These parents and their children had no privacy. Most of them lived in 1-bedroom-homes because that was all they could afford. Since they worked two or three jobs, the kids were raising the kids.

Older siblings get easily annoyed with younger siblings, and they can resent them. You see a LOT of abuse by siblings who view younger siblings as the reason they are hungry.

You can't pass on your values to your child if you never SEE your child. You can't assure your child that you really do love them if you never see them.

Frankly - I see a HUGE amount of poverty, neglect and pure horror in Hispanic Catholics and the number one cause is NOT that Mom and Dad didn't try to discipline, or that they spoiled their kids or that they didn't love them. They just had so many of them that they COULDN'T care for them.

 

Here's the "skinny" as I see it! in the book of Psalms--there's a place where

1) God describes children as "arrows"

2) Daddy is seen as the "Bowsman"

3) He fires his arrows at the enemy---hopeing to make a Godly "impact" and "impress" the enemy toward the side of God

4) The Bible also says in the book of Psalm---"Children are an heritage from the Lord. Blessed is the man who's quiver is full of them."

Do you follow me so far???

Good!! I thought so!!!

I realize that my quiver was full when I found two "arrows" in it!!! Two arrows!! Two arrows to fire at the enemy!!! Know what that means??? For Jesus' sake-----for Jesus' sake-----for Jesus' sake

I've got to somehow make both shots count!!!! Arrows are not "boomerrangs"-----I don't get um back if I fail to hit the target!!!

Now---you may have more than two arrows---that just means you get to stay in the war a little longer than I do----but dear dad----its useless to have five, seven, ten, fifteen arrows---but you can't hit the side of a mountain with them!!! See??? My two are more productive if I hit the target both times than yours are if you shoot fifteen times---and miss fifteen times!!!! See???

No matter how many "arrows" you may have----dear Dad-----you are the Bowsman----make all your arrows count when you shoot toward the enemy!!!!!!

Amen????

 

Blackbird,

*g* I can't tell if you are for or against birth control.

 

If the Bible is not silent prove to me from Scripture, that birth control is a sin! You have yet to do so!

Yes it is part of marriage, and it is part of God's creative act, but if children are not born it is not a sin! Where does it say that it is!

Who cares about modern birth control, it possible that even the society back then could have been wrong. And they did not have as much of a Christian worldview than you think they did.

Why can't any of you meet the burden of proof. All you do is claim everyone who practices birth control are in sin. Where is the Scripture to support your claims.

I do not deny children are blessing. I do not deny that they come as part of marriage. But I see NO biblical evidence one way or the other regarding birth control.

You can have your preferances in this matter, but stand in judgment, of other Christians where the Bible is silent, is falt out wrong. </font>[/QUOTE]You need to read more carefully. I have never said that birth control per se was a sin.

I do think that the attitude behind its use is, for the vast majority, selfishness.

 

It was my wife that taught me the truth about trusting in God concerning every area of life, including reproduction.

Our children are 18 (junior at Auburn University), 15 (starting freshman at a Community College in computer programing and Cisco Networking), 13, 11, 9, 7, 5, 2.

We wouldn't give them up for our own selfish desires for all of the money in the world.

God is good. And so are his blessings.

 

A Georgia family with 5 children under 6 years old lost several of their children to the state when the 18 month old, being 'watched' by a 5 year old, climbed onto the kitchen counter and scalded herself in the sink. She had 2nd and 3rd degree burns.

I seriously agree that parents should be responsible for the children they birth. I can understand asking a 14 year old to watch the 8 year old while mom runs to the store. </font>[/QUOTE]Why do you folks always take the most extreme and ludicrous examples as evidence for your points. When we talk of older children watching younger children, we are talking about this in the framework of a stay at home parent.

We are also talking about a 15 year old watching a 2 year old, and a 13 year old watching a 5 year old.

 

Again, where did anyone reference watching and caring for younger siblings without a parent being home.

Honestly, folks, assumptions, assumptions. The original point was made in reference to a wife and mother being a wreck.

It doesn't have to be that way. If only "parents" would stop being the servants of the children.

I've watched how most families raise their children. They are a wreck with just two kids!

Shame on them.

 

Agreed, except for that last sentence.

People always afford what they want to afford, even poor people.

The cause of the problem you cited is not a lack of birth control, it is a lack of education and employable skills.

 

Interesting take on those Scriptures. You are right. We must make our arrows count!

How do you think most "Christian" families are doing?

What I see is that many of the children from "Christian" homes look, act, think, and feel just like the nonbelievers' kids.

We're not doing too well, are we?