consider the welfare state of our society , and how it is draining the quality of living for everyone!!
Children need more than a house and food to live.. they need spiritual and emotional concern.. with so many it slacks, even if the familiy can provide enough money can they educate and spiritual provide for as many as the sex allows?
another consideration.. birth defects rise as a mother ages and to "trust the Lord" is playing with a gun when we now know the facts regarding this issue.. who will care for the disabled when mom is to old to continue on? the state, will finance them then, the brothers and sisters seems like an idea determined to be a burden that is unecesary .
The over idealism of the bible is to serve the Lord, to serve the needy and the opressed not to make more of them !
Will it work? Will the kids from these big families reallystand for exactly what their parents stand for?
I would think a number of them will make the decision that their kids won't wear hand me downs, their kids will have braces and dermatologists, their kids will know enough about popular culture etc to not feel like a freak when they enter the work force.
I knew kids from big families, growing up catholic. I had a boyfriend who was #9 in a family of 17 kids. My mother was one of twelve...I don't know anyone who grew up in a huge family who then decided it was so great they were going to have their own huge family.
Pretty hard to raise that many kids and meet needs. Doing lots of chores and being obedient don't necessarily make childhood memories warm and fuzzy.
When the kids grow up, they may very well look back and decide to do better by their own children.
The LDS church while supporting the idea of many chilfren also carries the proviso that one must be able to support said family with everything that is needful.
consider the welfare state of our society , and how it is draining the quality of living for everyone!!
Children need more than a house and food to live.. they need spiritual and emotional concern.. with so many it slacks, even if the familiy can provide enough money can they educate and spiritual provide for as many as the sex allows?...
We homeschool.
We have been very active in churches.
And our household has supported itself, very nicely over the years, thank you very much.
Why would there be an assumption that having lots of children should cause one to become dependent on welfare?
consider the welfare state of our society , and how it is draining the quality of living for everyone!!
Children need more than a house and food to live.. they need spiritual and emotional concern.. with so many it slacks, even if the familiy can provide enough money can they educate and spiritual provide for as many as the sex allows?
another consideration.. birth defects rise as a mother ages and to "trust the Lord" is playing with a gun when we now know the facts regarding this issue.. who will care for the disabled when mom is to old to continue on? the state, will finance them then, the brothers and sisters seems like an idea determined to be a burden that is unecesary .
The over idealism of the bible is to serve the Lord, to serve the needy and the opressed not to make more of them !
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.
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."
Interesting. ... Perhaps what he says 'betrays a deeply erroneous understanding' of why a good number of people choose not to have children. At the very least, he is making a broad brush assumption as to why they (all or most) don't.
Besides, I always wondered what business is it of the Church (Catholic _or_ Protestant), or even of it's God, how many children a couple has. Why not totally leave it for the couple to decide, and that's that?
P.S., An aside Mark. Why is it that the Catholic Church is against contraception, or at the least artificial contraception? I never could understand that precept of theirs.
Interesting. ... Perhaps what he says 'betrays a deeply erroneous understanding' of why a good number of people choose not to have children. At the very least, he is making a broad brush assumption as to why they (all or most) don't.
Besides, I always wondered what business is it of the Church (Catholic _or_ Protestant), or even of it's God, how many children a couple has. Why not totally leave it for the couple to decide, and that's that?
P.S., An aside Mark. Why is it that the Catholic Church is against contraception, or at the least artificial contraception? I never could understand that precept of theirs.
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.
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 can tell you from personal experience...without barring nature's course there,
wow, those cats sure multiply.
They take over the house, and I'm almost certain...
they want to rule the world.
BTW, does anyone here want a kitten?
Danny
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).
Personally I think if two people willing participate in the act of sex and the woman becomes pregnant both should take responsibility to have the child. And perhaps put the child up for adoption if they cannot handle the responsibility.
I do not agree with twi that abortion is right the way they taught us
Though I would say that in cases of rape and endangerment to the mother, abortion can be considered. Primarily the mother's decision, though the father can have some say in the matter if it's not a rape case.
Planned parenting is something that is solely up to the parents and not any church organization. It is their decision and their's alone for they are the ones to take care of the results of their decision.
My wife and I decided to stop at two kids by legal medical means.
Sometimes we wish we would not have stopped at two and sometimes we are glad we did.
Planned parenting is something that is solely up to the parents and not any church organization. It is their decision and their's alone for they are the ones to take care of the results of their decision.
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)
"to lend support and encouragement to couples who are totally open to as many children as God gives them"
Easy there, Garth. According to this they're not trying to tell anybody what to do. They're lending support to those who are "in the bag" so to speak.
I'm a father of but two, but I say more power to 'em.
Having ben involved in the home school community here, a group that has a high rate of big families, I've made some observations:
No, these parents can't guarantee the outcome of their kids, that they'll buy into their upbringing.
I've yet to see a case personally where having too many kids doomed the family to permanent poverty. From where I sit, the lids from big families are well-adjusted, not selfish, not spoiled and are more independent than little Johnny-of-One. I have an employee, age 30, 5 kids with the oldest being 6. He & his wife save buckets of money on the modest income he earns are outstanding. I could wish they'd make 50 of 'em.
So, those of you that blanch at big families, what's your problem? Afraid little Maggie won't get her PS3?
I don't really object to big families, though my experience growing up with kids from big families( like 8 or more kids. I grew up in a family of four kids and we weren't really considered a big family in the Catholic community we lived in) wasn't that great. I remember my college roommate, the oldest of eight, telling me why she had no plans to ever have kids of her own--she felt like she'd already raised her kids, her younger siblings. Her junior and senior high years we full of childcare and chores. She never did have kids, either.
If a couple can meet the pysical and emotional needs of an enormous family, and that is their desire, then I don't have a problem.
But as for enormous families becoming some kind of church trend, well, I think many people are not really prepared to raise huge families and meet the needs of the kids. One girl I grew up with stands out--when she got out of highschool she paid for her own braces, because her parents couldn't afford them, and she had really crooked teeth that always bothered her.
I do feel sorry for the daughters, since it seems like many of the ultra Bible Literalist/traditional folk don't think higher education is all that important for girls, since they need to marry and raise kids...not every girl wants to or is suited to that life.
And that whole 'Raise up an army for God'? Just plain scary. What does an army do? They take control by force. Ick. Viewing others outside your group as the enemies--too close to 'wash my feet in the blood of the wicked' for me.
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)
With few exceptions, I think that a couple who intentionally remain childless (emphasis on the word intentionally) have some serious problems with themselves.
I would hope, Mark, you aren't suggesting these people have children. I would think there are enough dysfunctional people in the world (I am probably their leader, but we're too dysfunctional to get a meeting together ), we don't really need any us running around. :blink:
Mark, you mentioned one thing I've noticed. There seems to be some kind of longing to be back in the nineteenth century among some of the homeschool folks I've known. I know a mom who homeschooled three daughters--she made them 'school uniforms' --pink gingham pinafores. Yes, they looked darling, like blond pioneer baby dolls...but it was a little weird...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
6
8
17
16
Popular Days
Nov 20
26
Nov 21
15
Nov 22
12
Nov 19
10
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 6 posts
Abigail 8 posts
markomalley 17 posts
dancing 16 posts
Popular Days
Nov 20 2006
26 posts
Nov 21 2006
15 posts
Nov 22 2006
12 posts
Nov 19 2006
10 posts
Galen
Sounds like fun
:) :) :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
The bible speaks of providing for your own house.
in
1 tim5:8
consider the welfare state of our society , and how it is draining the quality of living for everyone!!
Children need more than a house and food to live.. they need spiritual and emotional concern.. with so many it slacks, even if the familiy can provide enough money can they educate and spiritual provide for as many as the sex allows?
another consideration.. birth defects rise as a mother ages and to "trust the Lord" is playing with a gun when we now know the facts regarding this issue.. who will care for the disabled when mom is to old to continue on? the state, will finance them then, the brothers and sisters seems like an idea determined to be a burden that is unecesary .
The over idealism of the bible is to serve the Lord, to serve the needy and the opressed not to make more of them !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Will it work? Will the kids from these big families reallystand for exactly what their parents stand for?
I would think a number of them will make the decision that their kids won't wear hand me downs, their kids will have braces and dermatologists, their kids will know enough about popular culture etc to not feel like a freak when they enter the work force.
I knew kids from big families, growing up catholic. I had a boyfriend who was #9 in a family of 17 kids. My mother was one of twelve...I don't know anyone who grew up in a huge family who then decided it was so great they were going to have their own huge family.
Pretty hard to raise that many kids and meet needs. Doing lots of chores and being obedient don't necessarily make childhood memories warm and fuzzy.
When the kids grow up, they may very well look back and decide to do better by their own children.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
The LDS church while supporting the idea of many chilfren also carries the proviso that one must be able to support said family with everything that is needful.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
We homeschool.
We have been very active in churches.
And our household has supported itself, very nicely over the years, thank you very much.
Why would there be an assumption that having lots of children should cause one to become dependent on welfare?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
1 Tim 5:8 specifically is speaking about taking care of widows.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Interesting. ... Perhaps what he says 'betrays a deeply erroneous understanding' of why a good number of people choose not to have children. At the very least, he is making a broad brush assumption as to why they (all or most) don't.
Besides, I always wondered what business is it of the Church (Catholic _or_ Protestant), or even of it's God, how many children a couple has. Why not totally leave it for the couple to decide, and that's that?
P.S., An aside Mark. Why is it that the Catholic Church is against contraception, or at the least artificial contraception? I never could understand that precept of theirs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Mark,
Do you have any cats?
And should pet-owners get their animals fixed?
I can tell you from personal experience...without barring nature's course there,
wow, those cats sure multiply.
They take over the house, and I'm almost certain...
they want to rule the world.
BTW, does anyone here want a kitten?
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
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).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
Personally I think if two people willing participate in the act of sex and the woman becomes pregnant both should take responsibility to have the child. And perhaps put the child up for adoption if they cannot handle the responsibility.
I do not agree with twi that abortion is right the way they taught us
Though I would say that in cases of rape and endangerment to the mother, abortion can be considered. Primarily the mother's decision, though the father can have some say in the matter if it's not a rape case.
Planned parenting is something that is solely up to the parents and not any church organization. It is their decision and their's alone for they are the ones to take care of the results of their decision.
My wife and I decided to stop at two kids by legal medical means.
Sometimes we wish we would not have stopped at two and sometimes we are glad we did.
Edited by dancingLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
"Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is very convicted and outspoken on the subject."
Okay, I'm starting a pool as to when Mr. Mohler will be 'convicted' of something. I say, Jan 27, 2011.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
"to lend support and encouragement to couples who are totally open to as many children as God gives them"
Easy there, Garth. According to this they're not trying to tell anybody what to do. They're lending support to those who are "in the bag" so to speak.
I'm a father of but two, but I say more power to 'em.
Having ben involved in the home school community here, a group that has a high rate of big families, I've made some observations:
No, these parents can't guarantee the outcome of their kids, that they'll buy into their upbringing.
I've yet to see a case personally where having too many kids doomed the family to permanent poverty. From where I sit, the lids from big families are well-adjusted, not selfish, not spoiled and are more independent than little Johnny-of-One. I have an employee, age 30, 5 kids with the oldest being 6. He & his wife save buckets of money on the modest income he earns are outstanding. I could wish they'd make 50 of 'em.
So, those of you that blanch at big families, what's your problem? Afraid little Maggie won't get her PS3?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
I wouldn't waste my time on the subject any more Mark.
No arguement to it biblically or any other way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I don't really object to big families, though my experience growing up with kids from big families( like 8 or more kids. I grew up in a family of four kids and we weren't really considered a big family in the Catholic community we lived in) wasn't that great. I remember my college roommate, the oldest of eight, telling me why she had no plans to ever have kids of her own--she felt like she'd already raised her kids, her younger siblings. Her junior and senior high years we full of childcare and chores. She never did have kids, either.
If a couple can meet the pysical and emotional needs of an enormous family, and that is their desire, then I don't have a problem.
But as for enormous families becoming some kind of church trend, well, I think many people are not really prepared to raise huge families and meet the needs of the kids. One girl I grew up with stands out--when she got out of highschool she paid for her own braces, because her parents couldn't afford them, and she had really crooked teeth that always bothered her.
I do feel sorry for the daughters, since it seems like many of the ultra Bible Literalist/traditional folk don't think higher education is all that important for girls, since they need to marry and raise kids...not every girl wants to or is suited to that life.
And that whole 'Raise up an army for God'? Just plain scary. What does an army do? They take control by force. Ick. Viewing others outside your group as the enemies--too close to 'wash my feet in the blood of the wicked' for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
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)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
I would hope, Mark, you aren't suggesting these people have children. I would think there are enough dysfunctional people in the world (I am probably their leader, but we're too dysfunctional to get a meeting together
), we don't really need any us running around. :blink: 
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Mark, you mentioned one thing I've noticed. There seems to be some kind of longing to be back in the nineteenth century among some of the homeschool folks I've known. I know a mom who homeschooled three daughters--she made them 'school uniforms' --pink gingham pinafores. Yes, they looked darling, like blond pioneer baby dolls...but it was a little weird...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
... looks straight outta Wizard of Oz, too.
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I deleted this post because it was in poor taste. My apologies.
Edited by markomalleyLink to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
Just because a married couple don't want kids, doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with them.
It's no one's business except the married couple. Steer clear of these type of religions would be my suggestion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
or at least the controling part of a religion
some religions that have the bad also have some good
point is i am not tied to any religion
so i can take the good and leave the rest
and i can give if they receive
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Who says they're controlling? This is a group for people who've already decided that's the way they'd like to go. I don't see the controlling.
Incidentally, I can see aspiring to an earlier era absent our coarseness in mores, music, language, the arts, lierature, etc.
Anyway, they have their club, and they're hurting nobody & breaking no laws. Right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.