markomalley

(a snide aside) I just love seeing an evangelist hard at work.

FWIW, there was a thread that touched on house churches as well as other related subjects from a while back. You can find it at this link.

Abigail, I read your posts with interest and you brought up many very, very good points. And in anything I've said or will say, please don't take comments I make as a personal criticism in any fashion. In your first post, you make the comment: Likewise, the need for a college education in order to earn the income necessary to support a family. True, and this is a HUGE expense for families. I would, in turn, ask you to decompose the statement a bit. What are the factors that lead to increased cost of college tuition? I would submit that there are three factors that are primary causes: (1) increased cost of salaries and benefits for college faculty/staff, (2) increased costs for the infrastructure (the plant and equipment) -- both new/updated infrastructure and maintenance, and (3) expanded research...leading to additional costs in the above two categories that aren't directly attributable to the cost of educating students. I think you would find that the biggest single cause is increased requirements for salaries. You make another very valid point in your second post: The loss of the extended family (which I see as even more detrimental to our society) probably also has a bearing on how many children people decide to have. What contributes to the loss of an extended family? Mobility is no doubt a factor. Many more of us end up settling far from where we were reared. (Personal anecdote: I was raised in Minnesota. I haven't been to Minnesota in 15 years) We've had migration before, though. Our country's history is full of migration. Another contributing factor is smaller family size, itself. Face it, if a person's parents each came from a family with two children, there's not much of an extended family to draw upon...even if they all live in the same local area. That situation is happening more and more. Fewer of the physical/manual labor jobs in our country pay a living wage, so fewer are willing to do them. Those that do pay a living wage are often the union shops. Unfortunately, with the rising cost of healthcare, fewer businesses can afford to pay a living wage AND pay for healthcare benefits so it is cheaper for them to outsource those jobs to countries that do not have unions, do not require living wages, do not offer employer sponsored healthcare. I think that an examination of wages throughout history would reveal that physical/ manual labor jobs in this country have never really paid a decent wage. If you look at iron mills during the industrial revolution, construction jobs, cotton mills, agriculture, or anything other than the professional class, you would find that there is a comparatively small period of time where the manual laborer ever got paid what we would call a decent wage. Having said that, there are fewer people who are faced with the alternative of doing these manual labor jobs or starvation. Therefore, most would prefer to do something that requires less sweat per dollar. Then there are those businesses that are profitable enough to do all of the above, but are run by greedy CEO's (and there your perspective definitely comes into play) who want to put as much money in their own pockets as they can and could care less about the people working for them. This is not a new thing. It's not a new thing...and that's the point. All of your observations bring up very valid points. But most of the observations reflect traits that have been common throughout history. Greed, mobility of society, and lack of available resources to the working class have been with us since the dawn of time. (In Egypt, the working class were slaves...and it hasn't gotten that much better since) You brought up, and I agree, that the desire for improved salaries and improved conditions exist. Is that to fill survival needs or to fill wants? To have better and more. Anecdote: I make a pretty good salary (upper middle class for the area). I need the salary I make to live the life I want to live. Two fairly new (2002 Avalon, 2004 Tacoma) cars. Own a single family home in a fairly safe neighborhood. Able to send my daughter to a good school rather than the dangerous, ineffective public school she'd otherwise attend. Able to pay my bills. Internet access. Medical insurance. So on and so forth. But how much of this would be classed as true "survival needs." I could, in theory, live in an apartment in a lousy neighborhood, and end up paying about 1/3 of what we do. We could have an old "WOW-Mobile" instead of the two decent cars we have. And so on and so forth. It would be hard to go back to that level (although, in the military, I was there before), but had we always been there and didn't have the thought to do otherwise, would we miss what we never knew? There are two issues that I've seen change the calculus, though: 1) Better communications. More information (good or bad) are available to the masses since WWII than ever before. (As with the anecdote above, before television, I might not see the lives of others and envy those lives like I would seeing them on TV) 2) A reduction in sharp class differences. Before the last century, there were some very sharp class differences that would serve as a barrier that would be very difficult, at best, to breach. Typically, it would be very rare to see a child of a laborer to receive a college education and to become a professional. The child of a farmer would be a farmer. The child of a coal miner would be a coal miner. The child of a factory worker would be a factory worker. And the child of a doctor would be a doctor (or some other professional class). The child of an industrialist would either be leisure-rich or an industrialist, himself. I believe that public education has historically had a major role in this. But there may be other causes. (Anecdote: I could start off as a lowly E-1 in the military and work up to running a major corporation...as long as I don't have to deal so much with the class differences) One other point is that the birth control pill became available starting in 1960. (As a note, the highest birth rate in the country was in 1960 (118 births per 1000 women in 1960, 87.9 per 1000 in 1970, 68.4 per 1000 in 1980...and 66.3 in 2004). If there is a causal relationship between the pill and the birth rate, is the pill the reason or just an enablement to a societal change that was ripe to happen? I say this because the birth rates, when examined by race, are down with both black and white non-hispanics (67 per thousand and 58 per thousand, respectively, in 2004), while with hispanics, the rate is actually a little larger in 2004 as compared to 1980! It was 97 per thousand in 2004, while it was 95.4 in 1980. Hispanics, by and large, come from a different culture than blacks and whites in this country....but they still have the same availability of the pill as anybody else in this country. So I don't see the pill being as much of a cause, but a tool that enabled the change in society that was ripe for the change (for good or for bad). Had the pill somehow been introduced in 1900 rather than 1960, would the birth rate have as dramatically fallen upon its introduction? (Up until the 1930s, birth control was universally condemned by ALL Christian denominations, this may have had a large influence...or maybe not) You asked if it mattered whether the primary language was Spanish or English? Or if it mattered if secular Europe or secular America (with somewhat Christian-based roots) became majority Muslim? My answer would be that it would matter not a whit if those immigrants mold themselves to the culture with which we are mostly comfortable. I don't think that you would approve, though, if France adopted Sharia law. That could happen in a liberal democracy that is overwhelmed by members of a particular culture who do not adapt. Again, what are the societal impacts of the declining birth rate? Have we, as a culture, replaced the value we place upon having a larger (not even large) family with the value of providing material goods for ourselves and the zero, one, or two children in our families? And is that a good thing looking at it in the ultimate sense? It still comes down to the basic ontological question I asked a while ago... These folks in the article that started off this thread are definitely counter-culture.

That could be a potentially valid point if you subscribe to the Bible as your world view. But what is it about Western society that causes Westerners to be so wasteful? Or is it just the condition of man? I say this because I know of plenty of "Easterners" who, upon being relocated in the "West," become just as wasteful. Not after a couple of generations: but immediately. I can accept the premise that more resources per capita are used in the "West" than in the "East," but I do not automatically accept the conclusions that are automatically drawn from that by most sources. I see plenty of consumtpion within the East as well, when the East's economy grows. For example, China is now becoming a major competitor for oil. Why? Because their economy is growing as fast as it is. From where I've seen, personally, in the middle east there is, again, plenty of consumption over there, as well...from those who have the means to consume. Northern/ Central Europe is, by far, the most "ecologically" aware place that I've lived. Recycling is enforced and is a social norm. High gasoline taxes and readily available public transportation combine to allow a HUGE population density while still allowing mobility. Germany's population density is 232 people per sq km, the UK is 246 people/sq km. Compare this to the US with a population density of 31 people/sq km. (By the way, the average population density in the world is 48 people per sq km). If you've ever visited Europe, you'd note that it is not trashed. But yet isn't Europe as "Western" as one can get? If you take a look at consumption, you can see some interesting trends. Everybody looks at energy consumption per capita and assigns a horrible score to the US with 342 million BTU per person used per year. However, we are not the worst. Canada has 418 million BTU per person. Norway is 424 MBTU/person. Singapore, of all places, uses 444 MBTU per person per year. China, although it uses far less, is an interesting case and illustrates the role of affluence. In 1980 they used 17 MBTU per person per year. In 2004, they used 42 MBTU per person per year. But another interesting measure is the BTU per dollar of gross domestic product. The US takes 9,336 BTU to produce a dollar of income (that's down from 14,234 BTU per dollar in 1980). China (remember how little energy per person they used) takes 9,040 BTU to produce a dollar of income. North Korea takes over 15,000 BTU to make a dollar. Russia also uses over 15,000 BTU to make a dollar, as does Liberia, in West Africa. Even South Africa takes over 12,000 BTU to make a dollar. So it depends upon how you look at it. The US definitely is close to the top, when you consider energy per capita...but, if you look at what we do with that energy, we're pretty much in the middle. The traditional characterization of west versus east, north versus south also falls apart when you look at the actual numbers...and you look at those numbers crunched in different ways. (If you want to look at the energy numbers yourself, you can go to the <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/energyconsumption.html">Energy Information Administration</a> website). The point being that West versus East or North versus South is not necessarily a good measure, at least as far as energy consumption is concerned. Developed versus undeveloped is a better measure, but there are other factors: Europe is, considering its level of development, far more efficient than many countries...both from the West and from the East. If we take a look at per capita growth, we would find that many developing countries are coming on strong as to their rates of growth. Large families are still highly valued in many countries, including some that are well on the path of developing or are developed. Yes, China is an exception, but we have no idea what their cultural mores would call for if not for their one-child family limit was not in force. The question remains, what in society would happen to change the fertility rate in countries like Italy (1.3), Germany (1.39), the UK (1.66), or France (1.84), or even the US (2.01)? (Keep in mind that the replacement fertility rate is somewhere between 2.1 and 2.3...depending upon who you ask)

One other comment: I'm sure most people would prefer to read "O'Malley, Abridged" as compared to either of the two titles listed above. ;)

Belle, As I tried to say to Abigail, above, the decision to have children is a purely personal decision. What concerns me is the mores of a society that shape the individual decision-making process that result in the childless family or the single-child family by choice. No, I am not advocating that couples should decide to rear large families as a patriotic measure. What concerns me is that society has changed, that it has become utterly ego-centric and materialistic in nature. That society influences, to one degree or another, all the members of that society. Part of the effect of that societal change is the tendency toward smaller and smaller families... Part of the effect of that societal change is the tendency toward upward mobility (How can I better myself and have a more prestigious, better-paying, physically less strenuous job...a bigger, better house in a better area...and so on) (I am hardly saying that I am not a part of that trend...so please don't think I'm trying to stand in judgement...these are observations...) But both those two effects noted above are, in large part, the cause of the mass immigration that has influenced both Europe and the US. There are fewer and fewer natives in both countries to do the work needed to maintain the economy and the infrastructure of those countries. The demographics of both countries are changing...the average age of native born residents is growing older. As a result, there are simply not enough young people (more importantly there are not enough young people willing) to do the hard work needed to maintain the infrastructure of the economy and to do the needed physical labor. We have outsourced much of the hard manufacturing work that is needed by industry to other countries. Both Europe and the US. We have imported labor to do much of the hard work needed to create and maintain infrastructure in this country (agriculture, construction, maintenance). Is the trend reversable? Honestly, I doubt it. I sincerely believe that within 50 years, Europe will be a Muslim continent (by and large). I also believe that Spanish will be the principal language used within the US somewhere around that time. And I don't think there is anything that could be done about it at this juncture. As you point out, it is not right to tell a couple whether to have children or not and how many to have. If the couple doesn't feel called to have those children, there's little that can be done. After all, it's not like our societal mores are going to change to value large families... LMAO

Abigail, I sympathize with what your comments. Modern society places us in an interesting position, as you alluded (to make indirect reference) in your post. We, as members of a society, place a high value on material abundance and on personal liberty. There is a cute little quip (a witty saying) that I remember seeing on a t-shirt years ago that said "He who has the most toys, wins." That presents an incredible amount of pressure on individuals and couples. While I know there are exceptions...I think we can agree that, since World War II, western (steeped in or stemming from the Greco-Roman traditions) society (a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests) has, by in large, become increasingly materialistic. How has that tendency affected the mores (the fixed morally binding customs of a particular group) of that society? And how do those societal mores affect the individual values inculcated into the individuals and couples impacting the processes used in deciding to conceive, bear, and rear a child (or children)? When one really analyzes the questions above, the ultimate (arrived at as the last result) antecedent (a preceding event, condition, or cause) condition comes down to the basic ontological (relating to or based upon being or existence) question I raised earlier: "Why am I here?" You, from your anecdotal experience, demonstrate this dichotomy (a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities) through your experience: you have personal freedom and wealth if you remain childless...but that freedom is accompanied by emptiness...the converse (reversed in order, relation, or action) is true with your decision to rear children. The ultimate (in my opinion) irony is that, in today's society, children are, in some cases by some people, viewed as material possessions (consider some child custody cases we see these days). The key point, though, is that I don't as much question the couples' motivation in making their decisions as question the societal mores that shape their values that, in turn, influence those decisions. The couples are making the right decisions for themselves and likely for their children (they'd be horrible parents anyway). But what caused that couple to take that decision? (And, more to the point, what causes a number of couples to take similar decisions?) By the way, the definitions provided in parentheses are an attempt to reach out to those who have accused me of playing "confuse a cat" (an allusion (indirect reference) to a 1969 Monty Python comedy skit) through the use of an overly-developed lexicon (the vocabulary of a language, an individual speaker or group of speakers, or a subject ) when writing in Doctrinal. It may make it a bit more more cumbersome but hopefully less confusing.

Nice going, slick? An attack? I guess I should just stop posting altogether in Doctrine, as apparently ANYTHING I say is going to be taken offensively by you.

Folks, I appreciate the words of support. But the point is that there were SO MANY people with whom this struck a nerve. Not just Clay. When one personalizes a theoretical argument and say that the general principle must be good or bad because of personal experience, it becomes difficult to argue that general point one way or the other. Because if you advance a philosophical point that is contrary to the anecdotal, experiential point raised by the other poster, it may be perceived that you are attacking that poster and that poster's experience. And so there is a high possibility of a fundamental discontinuity in the argument that would create a dissonance that could result in nothing but hurt feelings. So that's why I said I regretted opening up this topic. It appears to me that several folks, although perhaps more tactful than Clay, were responding on this anecdotal/experiential level, rather than on a philosophical level, to one degree or another. Engaging in a Biblical discussion is essentially a philosophical discussion, after all. Face it, the question of having children, not having children, having one child, having a bunch of children, and so on...if one really examines the question, it really deals with fundamental questions of ontology (the study of existance). It alludes to the questions of "What is my place in the universe?" and "Why am I here?" If one answers the question with either "there is no fundamental answer...I just am," or (not and, but or) "I am here to gain as many material possessions and be as successful in the eyes of the world as possible," one will definitely have one set of answers to the question on how one should reproduce. If one answers the question with "to populate the world (universe) and subdue it," one will have a radically different answer to the question. If one answers the question with "to know God, to love God, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next..." (sound familar, anybody?), one will have, again, a different set of answers. Or any other permutation of the answer...the point is the answer to the fundamental question is the antecedent to the question of children...at least on a philosophical basis The topic of children, fundamental purposes, etc., is a good study and would make for an engaging philosophical discussion. Frankly, it may cause some folks to think a bit deeper about their own lives than they have in the past (not any "Doctrinal" participants, who, for the most part are very deep thinkers, anyway, but referring primarily to lurkers on this forum). The application of the philosophy: what impact does a societal philosophy have on that society...is also engaging, is also interesting. Waysider brought up an interesting point about the application of a trend: the socialization of one child. Although no actual references were cited, the claim that empirical studies have been conducted is an interesting one. I'd be interested in discussing that (if I could actually see some of these studies) to see the actual conclusions to the studies, assuming that they are truly longitudinal studies where valid comparisons can be made. (The reason being is to see if the number of children is truly coincidental to their socialization abilities or if mitigating actions were taken to counteract negative effects...thus neutralizing negative effects) But, again, then we get into the subject of anecdotal experience versus philosophy...would others interject their valid, but anecdotal, experiences into the mix? Again, though, I didn't realize that the subject, brought up in this fashion, would hit so many hot buttons with people. The purpose was not to tweak peoples' buttons. That's why I apologized for starting the topic...and the apology still stands.

I shouldn't have started the thread at all. Apologies to all. I had no idea that I would strike so many nerves with this. I thought it would have just been an interesting theological discussion. Sort of like the Trinity, Are the Dead Alive Now, etc. Didn't know so many would take it personally. I do sincerely apologize to all for my behavior on this thread. It won't be repeated.

I deleted this post because it was in exceeding poor taste.

I deleted this post because it was in poor taste. My apologies.

Twinky, If you just got out, what I'd suggest in regard to JCOP and JCNG and JCOPS and any of the other Wierwillian works is put them aside. Relax and let your brain clear. Don't study. Seriously. Get a different version of the Bible...one that has NO notes in it (I know how we all marked up our Bibles). For several MONTHS just read the Bible for the pleasure of it. Don't read passages. Don't think about "literals according to usage." Don't think about what the Greek word is. Just relax. Let God work in you. Don't force it. Meditate on a passage. Read a whole psalm and just let yourself be absorbed into it. Don't worry about whether it is "to you" or "for your learning." God will communicate that fact to you one way or the other. Concentrate on building your relationship with God... The problem with TWI is that a lot of folks work their brains so hard that they lose the loving relationship with God in the process. If your brain has been in TWI mode for a number of years, it will be impossible to do honest research on any of Wierwille's work until you can truly take a fresh look at it. If you're fresh out of TWI, that just won't be possible. You want to know the test to see if you're brain is truly clear enough to take a fresh look at Wierwille's books? Go to an Eastern Christian liturgy (Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Melkite, Maronite, Syriac, Coptic, etc.). (Note to others: note I DID NOT say a Latin-Rite Mass) If you find yourself bringing up quotes from TWI and getting a really defensive feel in the pit of your stomach, you still have too much TWI-brain to honestly look at those books. Note: the same thing may happen if you go to a solemn Latin-Rite Catholic Mass or one of the many liturgically-based Protestant services (Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, etc.), but the feeling wouldn't be nearly as dramatic as it would be with an Eastern Christian liturgy. (BTW, I am not saying that you should convert to one religion or another...but those with a major case of TWI-brain feel an almost gutteral response to a traditional liturgy, rather than an appreciation for that liturgy...even though it may not be their cup of tea) But, of course, your mileage may vary and all of the above is in my humble opinion. (YMMV/IMHO)

Bramble, Honestly, I agree almost completely with your sentiments on the subject. While I do agree with the thought that in the ideal world that married couples should aspire to have offspring in the large scheme of things, I think the thought that a married couple should aspire to have eight, nine, or seventeen children is a throwback to an age long past...an age where many children were needed in an agrarian society or an age where the infant and child mortality rate was much higher (before modern public sanitation became the norm). I think that a low birth rate (0-1 children) is a major problem on a sociological basis for a society. This low birth rate in Europe since WWII has been a cause for them allowing as much immigration as they have since that time...and may result in the death of European civilization (Muslim immigrants make up over 20% of the French society and I think it's getting that much in Germany, as well). We probably wouldn't have the need for as many H1B visas (primarily Indians) and illegal aliens (mostly from Latin America) if we had a higher birth rate in this country, although our problems are not nearly as severe as they are in Europe...yet. And, frankly, most of our problems with Social Security are the end product of a relatively low birth rate that has become in vogue since the 60s. With few exceptions, I think that a couple who intentionally remain childless (emphasis on the word intentionally) have some serious problems with themselves. The concept of the DINK family (dual income no kids) and that this concept is not that uncommon is a horrible reflection on our society, as a whole. While I know there are exceptions (and exceptions that we all could cite), DINKs epitomize the self-centeredness and materialism that are prevalent in our society. (Yes, we all know the intentionally childless couple who are both intensely involved in charity work and yada yada yada...but those are, by far, the exception to the rule) And, as has been said before, the families with, intentionally, two, or especially one child are, again with some notable exceptions, do their children no favors. While, again in the norm, the children have their material needs taken care of, the children really don't get the opportunity to learn at a young age to deal in a societal situation. We hear about children becoming more and more overweight and out-of-shape today. I wonder if the studies showing this compare how many of these children come from only child or two child families vice large families? Now, there are, of course, obvious exceptions...I mention these exceptions in self-defense, not to insult anybody's intelligence: there are couples who, for medical reasons, may be unable to have children or who lose the ability to have children after only having one or two children. I understand that. I would also think that a couple who get married later in life would want to think very carefully before having children (as they may be too old to adequately rear those children as the children grow). I would also think that a military-married-to-military couple should think very hard about the wisdom of having children, at least while both spouses are in the military (i.e., from past experience, I think that one of the two spouses should make the sacrifice and get out if they are going to start a family up). After all, what happens if both spouses are deployed to war at the same time? Nor do I think any government or any church or any other group should mandate a family size. It should be a decision that is left up to the couple and the situation where they find themselves. Obviously. My comments are given as a commentary on society and the values that we have as that society in these days. (By the way, the only Biblical comeback I could have for these people is that, while we are told to be fruitful and multiply, there is nothing in the Bible that tells us how much we should multiply. God speaks to the blessings of large families, yes. But those statements are not commandments. The only time I would ever bring that up with them would be if they were chiding somebody for not sharing their opinion, as fundamentalists often find themselves doing)

But, Dancing, how would you argue your point, on a Biblical basis, with these conservative, Bible-believing Christians? Or could you? (not trying to be overly confrontational, just trying to keep the thread on track) Sushi: Heh-heh

When I was a kid... Bob Barker says yes. If you think about it, the natural environment within which a cat should live is not an apartment or a suburban house. Far too safe in either place. I agree. I've also lived in enough cities (particularly in Europe) where cats multiply so rapidly that they become vermin, little better than rats. By the way, for everybody, posting the article at the top of this thread does not indicate my indorsement of their philosophy. I was just curious how some people who claim to be "Bible-believing Christians" (as some who post in "doctrinal" claim to be) would argue, from the Bible with these people (who, from all appearances, are pretty fundamentalist in their beliefs...and, thus, would likely only respond to a Bible-based retort to their practices).

Garth, I wish I could give you a sound bite answer to your question as to "why." But there isn't one, because it is a whole philosophy that encompasses many of the basic questions of life itself. And there's no way that I could explain it in a paragraph or two. But the short version is that the Catholic Church is against anything that uses any unnatural means to separates the procreative process from sex. They believe that this disrupts the total giving of both partners that exists as a part of the sexual union. And that this total giving is a necessary central component of making two into one, the full communion that happens as a part of marriage. For the record, there is nothing in Canon Law or in the Magesterial Teachings of the Catholic Church that mandates any number of children that a family has to have. Marriage is to be ORDERED TOWARD having children. Couples are to COOPERATE with the love of God in the transmission of lifet; however, there is no number of children listed... In fact, the Second Vatican Council stated: "This council realizes that certain modern conditions often keep couples from arranging their married lives harmoniously, and that they find themselves in circumstances where at least temporarily the size of their families should not be increased. " (GS 51) (Frankly, if it were otherwise, why would the Catholic Church fully endorse the practice of natural family planning using the basal body temperature method...which, when properly done, is about 98-99% effective?) Anyway, I wish there was a really short answer to your question that I could effectively give.

1 Tim 5:8 specifically is speaking about taking care of widows. 1Ti 5:3 Honor widows who are real widows. 1Ti 5:4 If a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn their religious duty to their own family and make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God. 1Ti 5:5 She who is a real widow, and is left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day; 1Ti 5:6 whereas she who is self-indulgent is dead even while she lives. 1Ti 5:7 Command this, so that they may be without reproach. 1Ti 5:8 If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. 1Ti 5:9 Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband; 1Ti 5:10 and she must be well attested for her good deeds, as one who has brought up children, shown hospitality, washed the feet of the saints, relieved the afflicted, and devoted herself to doing good in every way.

For a college-level textbook, $100 is hardly an outrageous price nowadays. (Yes, it's outrageous, but it is very typical )

I read an article about a relatively new group called quiverfull (Website). This group rejects all forms of birth control, to include natural family planning. Here's an article about the group on a pro-life website: SAN ANTONIO, TX, November 16, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A pro-life trend among conservative Protestants is picking up steam in the US, Newsweek reports. In 1995, David and Suzanne Bortel of San Antonio, Texas developed a website called Quiverfull.com to lend support and encouragement to couples who are totally open to as many children as God gives them. Under the name of Quiverfull, the group encourages its members to reject all forms of birth control and welcome children as "a gift and blessing from our gracious heavenly father." The name of the group is taken from Psalm 127 of the Bible which says: "Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, The fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, So are the children of one's youth. Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them." Members of Quiverfull reject not only birth control but also Natural Family Planning, a natural method and one condoned by the Catholic Church as a moral way, under serious circumstances, to avoid conception by abstaining from sexual intercourse during the fertile periods of a woman's monthly cycle. Quiverfull's beliefs also do not condone any form of artificial conception, such as in-vitro fertilization. Mary Pride, a Quiverfull believer and author of the book, 'The Way Home', says, "You shouldn't be unnatural in going to a fertility clinic or in trying to avoid having children by regulating when to have sex with your husband." The Quiverfull website is careful to emphasize that family size is not what makes one a Quiverfull believer. It says, "Whether your quiver is large or small, you are welcome." Regarding all children as blessings and leaving fertility in the hands of God is the Quiverfull mission. Rejection of birth control is a growing trend among many denominations of Protestants. Many Protestants who previously espoused birth control methods, are becoming more and more alarmed by the contraceptive mentality that has overtaken the country. In today's society, sex and procreation of children are commonly viewed as two separate components of marriage. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is very convicted and outspoken on the subject. He says, "If a couple sees children as an imposition, as something to be vaccinated against, like an illness, that betrays a deeply erroneous understanding of marriage and children." For the rest of the article, you can look at lifesite.net. Oh yeah, please, No Catholic Bashing On This Thread, PLEASE. This group is not repeat is not a Catholic group. It is a Protestant group. I am reasonably sure that the majority of people here do not agree with this group's views. If I just wanted to get a batch of rolled eyes and random expressions of disapproval, I'd post this in "Open." But I'm posting it in Doctrinal. Why, you may ask? Because I'm curious...for those of you who are Christian but who believe that it is OK to limit family size (through natural or artificial birth control), what kind of a Biblical argument would you use to show these folks that it's perfectly OK to limit your family size...not that there's anything wrong with them choosing to have a big family, but that it's Biblically OK to keep a small family size, as well... Thought it might make a good discussion topic...

Ding-Ding-Ding!!!!! Give that girl a kewpie doll! And I think that the majority of the mass media are fully aware of that tendancy!

But is it news? There were 195 murders inside the District of Columbia during 2005. (That doesn't include the suburbs in MD and VA...just the district) There weren't 195 news stories about DC murders last year. There weren't 100 stories. There weren't 50. It wasn't considered news. It wasn't national news. It wasn't state news. It wasn't even local news. Sometimes, the only mention was a single sentence in the crime statistics section buried in page B-24 in the local edition. (Now there were some murder stories...but those stories were considered "news" only when the murders were exceptionally grisly, involved somebody famous, or were in a normally "safe" area) At the same time, the news reports on new highways, on new drugs being released, on a company making more or less of a profit than expected. We get puff pieces on certain politicians running for or in office. The daytime news shows have extended interviews on bra sizing, how to remove that cottage cheese from the legs, and the latest development in facial hair removal. At night, hours are devoted to bringing up the OJ Simpson case or about Scott Peterson or about whatever. There are even segments speaking about the lines in front of Best Buy with people waiting for the release of the PS3 game console. All of those things are news. But yet it seems like all we hear from Iraq is when an individual soldier gets killed. Or we hear about when a car bomb kills some Iraqis. Do we hear about a new school starting up? Do we hear about electric production? Do we hear about an emerging stock market? Do we hear about the cell phone and satellite TV explosion? Remember the Army web site that had captured Iraqi documents that disclosed nuclear secrets? Well, that web site had been up for months...and had documents tracing involvement with Al Qaeda and involvement with chemical weapons and suspicious shipments to and from Syria and, yes, nuclear weapons research. Couldn't be that...that would be pro-government propaganda. No mention of the documents that provided some validation of pre-war claims in the news. No mention of any of it...until (when?)...until some Democrat realizes that there are pre-war nuclear secrets in there. Then what happens? "AAAARRRGGGHHH Bush is giving nuclear secrets away AAARRRGGGHHHH" (Of course...then there's always the question, how and why would Saddam have nuclear secrets if he didn't have some serious interest in building or acquiring weapons? (I know somebody will make some excuse...don't bother) (btw, the pre-war documents site is gone. I have a link where translations of some of these documents was placed. If you would like that link, send me a PM) Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that American deaths should not be mentioned. I'm not saying that problems should not be brought out. But it seems like some balance is in order. Good news stories DO make it to the local media. Human interest stories DO make it on the magazine show media. Yes, too much of it and it turns into "fuzzy bunny" land. I am not advocating that. But it seems like what's being shown to us right now is a mirror image of "fuzzy bunny" journalism. ("Cold Prickly Journalism?" -- I don't know what kind of tag to apply to it...) But you can have propaganda FOR the government and you can also have propaganda AGAINST. What's needed is a balance. That's not what exists. I'd just like to see a reasonable balance. If all we heard on the local news was in-depth stories about the local crime (with coronor pictures of the victims and the crime scene) and the corruption in local government, nobody would want to live here. And we DO hear those stories. But we also hear other, less negative news information. A similar balance on the war front would be a nice thing. But, of course, that's WAAAAY too much to ask. And, no, I'm not holding my breath.

Now this is ridiculous...Bush is already a lame duck...why make matters worse??? A renowned black magic practitioner performed a voodoo ritual Thursday to jinx President George W. Bush and his entourage while he was on a brief visit to Indonesia. Ki Gendeng Pamungkas slit the throat of a goat, a small snake and stabbed a black crow in the chest, stirred their blood with spice and broccoli before drank the "potion" and smeared some on his face. "I don't hate Americans, but I don't like Bush," said Pamungkas, who believed the ritual would succeed as, "the devil is with me today." He said the jinx would sent spirits to posses Secret Service personnel guarding Bush and left them in a trance, leading them into falsely thinking the President was under attack, thus eventually causing chaos in Bogor Presidential Palace, where the American leader was scheduled to meet President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono on Monday. For more, read this AP article Seems to me that he's been jinxed for a while, without the input of magick, anyway... (BTW: note to mods...I know this may turn political, but I put it in the "Silly" section because, well, it's silly. If you feel you MUST move it, ok. But it's too much fun to throw in the dungeon)

Belle, The answer is obvious: "If it bleeds it leads" The stuff in this clip is clearly just "government propaganda"

David, the purpose of my post wasn't to solicit thanks or whatever from anybody...just to let them know how I felt. But thanks.