With few exceptions, I think that a couple who intentionally remain childless (emphasis on the word intentionally) have some serious problems with themselves.
I think couples who remain intentionally childless are very wise to recognize they do not want children. It would be a disservice to the children and society to have them, when they aren't wanted.
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?
As a parent who intentionally only had two children (the reason I only have two children is because I did not want three), I think I would be doing my two children no favors if I had more. I recognized my limit and stopped when I reached it. While I admire those who can successfully raise larger families, I do not believe I am one of them.
However, my children have had and continue to have plenty of opportunities to learn how to deal with societal situations via interaction with each other, their cousins, their playmates and via school, sporting activities, cub scouts, etc. In addition, they are not only NOT over weight or out of shape, but they are physically stronger than many of their peers. The latter I attribute in large part to genetics, but also to the fact that they are kept physically active.
The inability to handle social or societal issues is probably due in large part to the lack of proper parental oversight. Lack of proper parental oversight usually stems from one or more of several factors: a) laziness; b) lack of parenting skills; c) two parents working long hours to pay for expensive cars, homes, and toys; d) poverty and/or lack of high wage paying skills which result in the need for both parents to work; and e) single parent homes with little or no child support leaving the single parent with no choice but to work long hours to make ends meet. None of those issues would be solved by having a larger family. In fact, having a larger family would likely intensify them.
Likewise, childhood obesity is not due to family size but poor diet and too much time in front of video games and computers - again something that would not be corrected by having more children.
OK ,I'll admit I haven't done my "biblical" homework on this issue. I do know,however, that the scientific community has done countless studies comparing how "only" children measure up to those of multiple sibling families. The results are surprising. "Only" children seem to adjust to society every bit as well as those with multiple siblings. Many times the "only " child is more adept at spending time alone, without a need to depend on siblings for interaction. This quality continues into adulthood. Much of what a child learns about social interactions comes by virtue of interacting with peers moreso than with siblings. Long story made short: It is a myth that "only" children are somehow socialogically handicapped . They can grow up to be every bit as well adjusted as children from large families. Extracurricular activities such as sports, drama club,church choir,etc. are important because they serve as a sort of series of lessons on how to fit into social settings and society in general.
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.
Excathedra------So sorry to hear about your childhood experience. It would seem that,due to your circumstances, your brothers and sisters were not only your siblings but your peers as well.
The only conclusion I have been able to draw from this thread is that quantity is not neccessarily relevent to qualityand every situation presents its' own set of deciding values and factors.
Mark-------If there was no relevence to your original post it surely wouldn't have hit so many nerves and provoked such lively discourse. My mother is one of 15 siblings so this thread caught my eye.
Thank you for presenting this subject for consideration.
Mark, I wasn't offended, I was simply offering a different perspective.
Judaism also teaches "be fruitful and multiply." It is a mitzvoh to have children. However, I believe that if, when, and how many children a person has is an indiviual and couples choice, not a religious one. Loving God, desiring to be Godly, does not automatically equate with good parenting or with the ability to raise large numbers of children. Likewise, lacking parenting skills or a lack of desire to be a parent, or lacking the ability to raise a large number of children does not make one ungodly or lacking in a love for God.
I can't argue it Biblically because it isn't there in plain black and white, chapter and verse statements. However, it seems to me that simple common sense says if you cannot feed the children you have, having more is wrong. If you have no desire to have children, then having them simply because one believes it is God's will is wrong - it has to be the individuals and couples will too.
Well, speaking as the mother of a large family of children, I am at a loss as to understand what they are being denied.
We believed the scripture that said that they were a blessing, that a quiver full was good.
Yeah sure, when they were young there wasn`t enough money for the elaborate chuckie cheese birthday parties, but we found other meaningfull ways to celebrate.
No they couldn`t all have ballet lessons, but the could and did participate on ball teams and theatre.
For the most part they adore each other, and are responsible, kind individuals. They learned at a very early age to think outside of their own selvs and consider the needs of others.
My nieces and nephews on the other hand who DID have every advantage from being raised as a single child or with one sybling with all of the advantages...they had EVERYTHING money could buy....but can be the most creepy, disrespectfull little snot you would ever want to meet.
One was already in trouble with the law before she was 13 for theft and stealing a car.
Mine have all of the latest toys and gadjets, but not because we can afford to buy them, but because each of them works very hard to earn the money that they save to get what they want.
They have motor cycles, go carts, a jet ski, horses, exotic pets.
I don`t think that you can claim that a child from a large family is at any more of a dissadvantage than one from a small one... that one way is any better than the other.
I have found that each has it`s own unique advantages and draw backs.....either way I don`t think that there is a right or wrong.
I think if people want to have a large family and work to meet the needs of their family, no problem.When it becomes a 'doctrine' of how to be godly, and taught from the pulpit by authority figures, the it becomes not so much a personal lifestyle choice. Some people will submit themselves to that doctrine, believing what they are taught, even though they may not have the talents or resources for raising a large family.That's where you find families where women feel trapped, where no one really has enough--enough sleep or food or money or patience or attention. And that's some of what I saw growing up.
Mark, I think it's a very interesting discussion. And interesting perspectives presented here. It seems that only one person has really gotten bent out of shape for some reason. <_<
Dancing, why does there have to be a position? Why does it matter what one's position is? It's a topic for discussion. Did you even read his first post?? :unsure:
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...
Mark DID post what he thought about the subject: Post 18
If you disagree with his point of view then speak to that point. Attacks aren't necessary.
I like Bramble's post that it should be a personal lifestyle choice and not some legalistic standard enforced by a church. BUT, as The Evan said earlier, these folks are willingly members of the group so they probably don't see it that way...like we didn't, at one time, see the legalism in TWI. I do hope that they can provide the love, attention, basic needs and whatnot required to raise a large family. I know I couldn't. I wonder sometimes if I would have the patience, mentality and fortitude required to raise ONE happy, healthy child.
I can attest to the fact that Rascal's family is absolutely delightful and those kids get along marvelously. I hate to leave them when I do get to spend time with them.
I suspect Galen's family is much the same way. How many kids have you raised, Galen? I don't remember off the top of my head, but that it is a lot. :)
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.
Mark, I think it could still be a valid and interesting discussion. I don't see how drawing from personal experience and/or refuting or discussing personal experience has to turn into button pushing or fighting. It all depends on how it is presented. I drew on personal experience. Ask me questions, challenge me. I don't mind. And even if I did get a bit hot under the collar about something, it will pass and is no big thing.
I find this: 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?"
especially interesting. I was thinking about this very thing while I was driving. I was considering what my life would be like right now if I didn't have children. The money I would have, the freedom to come and go as I please, the reduced stress because I wouldn't be faced with the many challenges parents face today. I was also thinking about how empty and void of purpose my life would feel. How all that "stuff" that I would have would mean nothing in the grander scheme of things. Of the little things kids say and do that are such a tremendous reward for the effort put forth in raising them.
Here's a bit more of the anecdotal, Mark, from a worldview quite different from the West. I wonder if it couldn't shed some light on biblical perspectives?
I'm speaking of the East African cultures I've experiences firsthand. As regards to having children, the various tribes with whom I've stayed seem to have a common general approach.
The overriding principle is community/village first, and family in context of that community. They see marriages in light of what they contribute to the community and as such the leaders and elders have a say in such matters. Producing children is paramount to a marriage union there. You'll not see divorce for any reason except not bearing children. There, the a#1 reason for a marriage union is to produce children. #2 is probably to insure that those children are productive memebrs of the community. I'm not sure if happiness figures into the mix.
To take our Western worldview of personal choice and self-fulfillment and attempt to apply it to biblical concepts causes a dissonance not easily remedied.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
6
17
16
Popular Days
Nov 20
26
Nov 21
15
Nov 22
12
Nov 19
10
Top Posters In This Topic
Abigail 8 posts
TheEvan 6 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
dancing
TheEvan,
They are using the bible to promote their own agenda.
Perhaps that's not controlling to some.
But some believe the bible is their rule book.
The bible does not say to have large families and whatever they are saying it says.
It's their interpretation only, I don't think they know what be fruitful and multiply means.
It's forcing their interpretation onto people instead of leaving them alone and letting them decide for themselves.
I suppose that one could just stay away from this group.
Mark,
You want a biblical argument when there isn't one.
On either side of the issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
With few exceptions, I think that a couple who intentionally remain childless (emphasis on the word intentionally) have some serious problems with themselves.
I think couples who remain intentionally childless are very wise to recognize they do not want children. It would be a disservice to the children and society to have them, when they aren't wanted.
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?
As a parent who intentionally only had two children (the reason I only have two children is because I did not want three), I think I would be doing my two children no favors if I had more. I recognized my limit and stopped when I reached it. While I admire those who can successfully raise larger families, I do not believe I am one of them.
However, my children have had and continue to have plenty of opportunities to learn how to deal with societal situations via interaction with each other, their cousins, their playmates and via school, sporting activities, cub scouts, etc. In addition, they are not only NOT over weight or out of shape, but they are physically stronger than many of their peers. The latter I attribute in large part to genetics, but also to the fact that they are kept physically active.
The inability to handle social or societal issues is probably due in large part to the lack of proper parental oversight. Lack of proper parental oversight usually stems from one or more of several factors: a) laziness; b) lack of parenting skills; c) two parents working long hours to pay for expensive cars, homes, and toys; d) poverty and/or lack of high wage paying skills which result in the need for both parents to work; and e) single parent homes with little or no child support leaving the single parent with no choice but to work long hours to make ends meet. None of those issues would be solved by having a larger family. In fact, having a larger family would likely intensify them.
Likewise, childhood obesity is not due to family size but poor diet and too much time in front of video games and computers - again something that would not be corrected by having more children.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
OK ,I'll admit I haven't done my "biblical" homework on this issue. I do know,however, that the scientific community has done countless studies comparing how "only" children measure up to those of multiple sibling families. The results are surprising. "Only" children seem to adjust to society every bit as well as those with multiple siblings. Many times the "only " child is more adept at spending time alone, without a need to depend on siblings for interaction. This quality continues into adulthood. Much of what a child learns about social interactions comes by virtue of interacting with peers moreso than with siblings. Long story made short: It is a myth that "only" children are somehow socialogically handicapped . They can grow up to be every bit as well adjusted as children from large families. Extracurricular activities such as sports, drama club,church choir,etc. are important because they serve as a sort of series of lessons on how to fit into social settings and society in general.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I deleted this post because it was in exceeding poor taste.
Edited by markomalleyLink to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
...
Edited by dancingLink to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
I did argue that it's not a biblical argument.
I said my piece.
Done.
Starting a thread for the sole purpose of an argument is interesting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
am i allowed to talk on here without a bible
i come from a family of 9 children
irish catholic surprise surprise
rhythm method didn't work i guess
my father didn't give one rat's ..... about my mother
or how he would (ha ha ha ha ha ha) support us
too busy beating us up
so what is godly or biblical about this ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
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.
Edited by markomalleyLink to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Darnit I missed all the fireworks
I just cant resist linking to THIS
Please no one take offense
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Excathedra------So sorry to hear about your childhood experience. It would seem that,due to your circumstances, your brothers and sisters were not only your siblings but your peers as well.
The only conclusion I have been able to draw from this thread is that quantity is not neccessarily relevent to qualityand every situation presents its' own set of deciding values and factors.
Mark-------If there was no relevence to your original post it surely wouldn't have hit so many nerves and provoked such lively discourse. My mother is one of 15 siblings so this thread caught my eye.
Thank you for presenting this subject for consideration.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
I don't buy it Mark.
What is your position on this?
You got responses not strikeing nerves.
I suspect you are the one nervous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
And don't worry about the thread and what you said Mark, sheesh.
Speak your mind.
Why do we feel we have to be so damn right all the time?
Bunch of crap.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Thanks for the thoughtful post, waysider.
dancing, I really don't understand. Why so hostile?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Mark, I wasn't offended, I was simply offering a different perspective.
Judaism also teaches "be fruitful and multiply." It is a mitzvoh to have children. However, I believe that if, when, and how many children a person has is an indiviual and couples choice, not a religious one. Loving God, desiring to be Godly, does not automatically equate with good parenting or with the ability to raise large numbers of children. Likewise, lacking parenting skills or a lack of desire to be a parent, or lacking the ability to raise a large number of children does not make one ungodly or lacking in a love for God.
I can't argue it Biblically because it isn't there in plain black and white, chapter and verse statements. However, it seems to me that simple common sense says if you cannot feed the children you have, having more is wrong. If you have no desire to have children, then having them simply because one believes it is God's will is wrong - it has to be the individuals and couples will too.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
if you don't understand why do you call me hostile?
you simply don't understand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Well, speaking as the mother of a large family of children, I am at a loss as to understand what they are being denied.
We believed the scripture that said that they were a blessing, that a quiver full was good.
Yeah sure, when they were young there wasn`t enough money for the elaborate chuckie cheese birthday parties, but we found other meaningfull ways to celebrate.
No they couldn`t all have ballet lessons, but the could and did participate on ball teams and theatre.
For the most part they adore each other, and are responsible, kind individuals. They learned at a very early age to think outside of their own selvs and consider the needs of others.
My nieces and nephews on the other hand who DID have every advantage from being raised as a single child or with one sybling with all of the advantages...they had EVERYTHING money could buy....but can be the most creepy, disrespectfull little snot you would ever want to meet.
One was already in trouble with the law before she was 13 for theft and stealing a car.
Mine have all of the latest toys and gadjets, but not because we can afford to buy them, but because each of them works very hard to earn the money that they save to get what they want.
They have motor cycles, go carts, a jet ski, horses, exotic pets.
I don`t think that you can claim that a child from a large family is at any more of a dissadvantage than one from a small one... that one way is any better than the other.
I have found that each has it`s own unique advantages and draw backs.....either way I don`t think that there is a right or wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I think if people want to have a large family and work to meet the needs of their family, no problem.When it becomes a 'doctrine' of how to be godly, and taught from the pulpit by authority figures, the it becomes not so much a personal lifestyle choice. Some people will submit themselves to that doctrine, believing what they are taught, even though they may not have the talents or resources for raising a large family.That's where you find families where women feel trapped, where no one really has enough--enough sleep or food or money or patience or attention. And that's some of what I saw growing up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Mark, I think it's a very interesting discussion. And interesting perspectives presented here. It seems that only one person has really gotten bent out of shape for some reason. <_<
Dancing, why does there have to be a position? Why does it matter what one's position is? It's a topic for discussion. Did you even read his first post?? :unsure:
Mark DID post what he thought about the subject: Post 18
If you disagree with his point of view then speak to that point. Attacks aren't necessary.
I like Bramble's post that it should be a personal lifestyle choice and not some legalistic standard enforced by a church. BUT, as The Evan said earlier, these folks are willingly members of the group so they probably don't see it that way...like we didn't, at one time, see the legalism in TWI.
I do hope that they can provide the love, attention, basic needs and whatnot required to raise a large family. I know I couldn't. I wonder sometimes if I would have the patience, mentality and fortitude required to raise ONE happy, healthy child. 
I can attest to the fact that Rascal's family is absolutely delightful and those kids get along marvelously. I hate to leave them when I do get to spend time with them.
I suspect Galen's family is much the same way. How many kids have you raised, Galen? I don't remember off the top of my head, but that it is a lot. :)
Edited by BelleLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
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?"
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
So now you take this as a chance to attack me?
Nice move slick.
And what is wrong with being direct and to the point?
Some call it whatever.
I call it straight to the point.
Bramble said it well also.
You guys think I'm upset or whatever,
I'm calling it like I see it.
First Mark, you wanted a biblical argument,
now you call it a philosophical point.
And you think you are pushing buttons.
I guess as you see it you are.
But that isn't what's happening here.
Edited by dancingLink to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
excathedra said it well also
hi ex...:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Mark, I think it could still be a valid and interesting discussion. I don't see how drawing from personal experience and/or refuting or discussing personal experience has to turn into button pushing or fighting. It all depends on how it is presented. I drew on personal experience. Ask me questions, challenge me. I don't mind. And even if I did get a bit hot under the collar about something, it will pass and is no big thing.
I find this: 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?"
especially interesting. I was thinking about this very thing while I was driving. I was considering what my life would be like right now if I didn't have children. The money I would have, the freedom to come and go as I please, the reduced stress because I wouldn't be faced with the many challenges parents face today. I was also thinking about how empty and void of purpose my life would feel. How all that "stuff" that I would have would mean nothing in the grander scheme of things. Of the little things kids say and do that are such a tremendous reward for the effort put forth in raising them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Here's a bit more of the anecdotal, Mark, from a worldview quite different from the West. I wonder if it couldn't shed some light on biblical perspectives?
I'm speaking of the East African cultures I've experiences firsthand. As regards to having children, the various tribes with whom I've stayed seem to have a common general approach.
The overriding principle is community/village first, and family in context of that community. They see marriages in light of what they contribute to the community and as such the leaders and elders have a say in such matters. Producing children is paramount to a marriage union there. You'll not see divorce for any reason except not bearing children. There, the a#1 reason for a marriage union is to produce children. #2 is probably to insure that those children are productive memebrs of the community. I'm not sure if happiness figures into the mix.
To take our Western worldview of personal choice and self-fulfillment and attempt to apply it to biblical concepts causes a dissonance not easily remedied.
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.