Be Fruitfull and Multiply

Not sure who people are trying to top since it wasn't in a group situation. And some of those my grandmothers, and my husband who lived this way. Not to mention quite a few christians have told me the same types of stories. I've seen some of this for myself.

 

She is saying I don't have more then 2 kids becasue I am selfish and wanted all those things. I never had any of those things, nor have I ever wanted them. All I ever wanted was to feed my kids each day, and keep them warm in winter.
So these have abseloutely nothing to do with why I do not have more then 2 kids, yet it is being said these are the reasons people don't ahve more kids then they can afford.
Which isn't true.

 

:laugh: i have a few of mine who thought the grass was greener on the other side at some friends house. (this has nothing to do with family size) after finding out that the other parents don't still play board games, cards, dance around to silly songs, read bead time stories or talk as the children do the chores that need to be done my children decided home was a wonderful place to be. well, that and at the cousin's (cindi's) house:laugh:

i agree. i never wanted children when i was a teen living at home...man i didn't know what i was missing. i'm so glad God saw fit to bless my home with these wonderful people!

5. we never ate out when our children were young, my kids didn't eat restaurant food until they were like 4 or 5, and that was a real treat at Macdonald's, but we had to hold it under $10. for 4 of us. It was another year or two before they had resturant food again, when my grandmother came to visit and wanted to eat out once.
So I guess we're pretty selfish.[/QUOTE]

no, i did not and would not call you selfish for wanting to provide a house to live in for your children with a bathroom, one that would stay cool in summer, warm in winter and one that would keep the rain or other water that shouldn't be there out.

no, i would not and have not called you selfish for wanting to provide the basic clothing needs of your children.

*here* if you were living in the house you have described cps would have been beating down your door. a family i knew growing up lost their children (2 children 13 & 16) because they tore the floor of the living room out to replace it after a pipe burst. cps didn't like it that they had to live with a dirt floor for 2 weeks while it was repaired.

no i did not say *you* were selfish. i said that the reasons i have been giving by many people that only have 2 children, by choice, are selfish. the reasons you gave were because you couldn't afford the basic things needed for daily life. not that you couldn't have the "top of the line". and if i remember right you also had health problems that would be life threatening if you were to have more. this isn't about *you*.

do not put words in my mouth.

 

I don't need to put words in your mouth, you do just fine on your own.
You said it was selfishness not to have lots of kids.

 

show me where i said it was selfishness to not have lots of kids.

now, i did say i have been given reasons that i felt were selfish to not have children or more children.

again...this really isn't about *you*

 

CPS gave us kids which were 5&7 years old for a reason similar to this. No common sense sometimes.

The family lived in a tent over the summertime because they didn't have a home until the beginning of the school year. Yet they had access to the Recreation Dept pool which has a drinking fountain and showers (only cold water). The showers had no doors because they were for swimmers (or anyone involved in the sports programs) to use. No one cares who uses it. CPS didn't like the lack of privacy, lack of warm water, no bathroom facilities, and family tent sleeping (no dwelling) A worker thought removing the kids from their parents would be better. That's what they told me, so it is the truth. The kids can bathe in their swimming suits or undies. We live in the foothills. The world can be our bathroom if the weather is good as it is in the summertime.

So we found their parents and moved them in with us upon the premise they would be watched like a hawk.

They didn't care. They loved their children, just a very nice family.

 

It amazes me what the priesthood of all believers (as the phrase usually goes on this side of the Atlantic) means.


Several times on this Board I have seen it used as though it meant something like, "I am not going to have a pastor or elder or other church leader telling me what to do!" However, it is rather about the access every believer has to God, without the need for a human "priest". I found this at: http://www.thesonofman.org/bible-study/14-hebrews/68-christs-perfect-sacrifice

We do not any more have to come to God through a human priest.
This is what [Martin] Luther meant when he said, “The priesthood of all believers.” What did he mean? He meant every Christian, every believer has free access to God through Jesus Christ. We do not have to go through another human being. We can come boldly to the throne of grace by a new and living way not through another human being, but through Jesus Christ.

​

Robert P. Lightner, in his book, "Evangelical Theology", wrote in Chapter 7:

Under the law the priesthood was restricted to one tribe and family. The nation of Israel had a priesthood. By contrast each member of the body of­ Christ is a priest, and together they are called a kingdom of priest(Rev. 1:6). This priesthood is said to be holy and royal (1 Peter 2:9).

The work of a priest involves sacrifice. Since Christ's sacrifice ended the need for all sacrifice for sin, what sacrifice then is the believer priest to bring? According to Scripture the believer's body is to be presented as a living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1). This involves the presentation of self to God. Likewise the praise of our lips and the doing of good works are constituted sacrifices which are well pleasing to God (Heb. 13:15-16). Every believer is a priest unto God with assurance of a future reign with Christ (Rev. 5:10; 2 Tim 2:12). Therefore, he needs no other mediator. The believer priest can go directly to the throne of grace and the Word of God.

​

I say again, the priesthood of every believer refers to the right of every believer to approach God, without thew need of a human intermediary.

 

It is not like CPS has cameras installed in every home that occupies children, so how did CPS get informed that this family was replacing the floor?

 

Your definition is valid, but it has an application germane to this discussion.

And thus God, through the Holy Spirit, is able to convict us and we deal with God directly. Issues such as this--issues that do not have a clear-cut Scriptural answer ("How many kids must I have?") very much does involve the Priesthood of the believer.

"Priesthood of the believer" keeps grace-stealers and spiritual dictators from supplanting the role of the Holy Spirit.

 

Not all parents are able to take care of a large number of children. Their ability to breed doesn't necessarily match their ability to parent.

love,

Sopranetet

 

Let's be careful of how far we take this idea ShortAndy. God also gave us a brain and He does expect us to use them. Faith doesn't preclude common sense.

People have a good idea of how much patience they have, what resources they can draw from and the health of their bodies. These things should be taken into consideration when deciding how many children to have. Much better to have fewer children than a lot of miserable ones because the parents are lacking in some fundamental way.

 

If we get back to this threads op, the topic is out breding muslims. Which is not biblical. We aren't in a breding contest, whoever wins wins the world. The bible tell sus how to create new christians, and it isn't breding them. If we want to living biblically then thats how we'll do it.

 

From a busybody not minding their own business.
Or as it is here, people report people simply because they want to 'get even' with them, revenge.

 

When you quote me, or address me then you are talking to me, and that makes it about me.