# Islam is outgrowing Christianity



## Claudiu

I found this interesting. I've been researching a little more into Islam and started looking at statistics. This is not meant to be a dispensational moment where we look at the middle east and Islam and freak out. But it was interesting to just see the numbers. I have relatives in Europe, so I know that the population in Europe is going down, while the immigrant and Muslims population is really starting to sore. 

With the statistics showing that the number of Christians is not decreasing or increasing, the number of Muslims is slowly starting to increase at a rate that it will soon surpass Christianity.

[video=youtube;6-3X5hIFXYU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU[/video]

-----Added 7/10/2009 at 05:38:47 EST-----

Also, when I use Christianity I mean it in the sense that it is used in statistics where all denominations fall under. While there are many people that are considered "Christians" we know the number is a lot lower (the number of actual Christians). So Islam passed the number of actual believers a while ago. 

My emphasis is just on the increase of Islam all over the world right now, not how we are going to become a "minority" in the religious aspect. I think true believers have been a minority compared to the people around us since Christ's time.


----------



## Sven

I could have told you that Islam would outgrow Christianity. My rapture chart predicted it. 

(This gives me an idea. Someone needs to come up with a rapture smiley. He could fly upwards leaving his pants and shirt behind or his car unmanned.)


----------



## Claudiu

Joshua said:


> It's a shame that so many professing Christians seem to despise children/having children.






It seems like this problem is not only happening in the West, but in the East as well. I think it was China or Japan that is having similar problems as Europe. Not Sure.

But most people claim that the present day conditions, such as the cost of living, is why people are not having children (as it is more expensive to have children).

-----Added 7/10/2009 at 05:50:26 EST-----



Sven said:


> I could have told you that Islam would outgrow Christianity. My rapture chart predicted it.
> 
> (This gives me an idea. Someone needs to come up with a rapture smiley. He could fly upwards leaving his pants and shirt behind or his car unmanned.)



You aren't too far from Dearborn, MI.
How is the Muslim population where you are?

I heard there are many efforts in evangelizing to the Muslims in Dearborn.


----------



## LawrenceU

> (This gives me an idea. Someone needs to come up with a rapture smiley. He could fly upwards leaving his pants and shirt behind or his car unmanned.)



How about this:












Practicing for the secret rapture:


----------



## Sven

LawrenceU said:


> (This gives me an idea. Someone needs to come up with a rapture smiley. He could fly upwards leaving his pants and shirt behind or his car unmanned.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Practicing for the secret rapture:
Click to expand...


Good ones, but they don't leave pants and shirts behind.

-----Added 7/10/2009 at 06:37:09 EST-----



cecat90 said:


> Sven said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could have told you that Islam would outgrow Christianity. My rapture chart predicted it.
> 
> (This gives me an idea. Someone needs to come up with a rapture smiley. He could fly upwards leaving his pants and shirt behind or his car unmanned.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't too far from Dearborn, MI.
> How is the Muslim population where you are?
> 
> I heard there are many efforts in evangelizing to the Muslims in Dearborn.
Click to expand...


Michigan holds the largest Arab population in America. Dearborn is the tenth largest Arab community in Michigan. There are all kinds of crazy Sha'riah law type stuff going on over there that nobody ever seems to deem newsworthy. I met a woman from one Arab community in MI that is hiding from her father because she became a Christian and if he ever finds her, he will kill her. No, the authorities are not doing anything about it. There are many Chaldeans in that area, however, that are Christians who fled from their countries to escape persecution. Most of them are Reformed Baptist. There are many who are trying to evangelize Muslims. There is a great missionary opportunity right here in Michigan. This site is a good place to go to keep up with Muslim news worldwide: Jihad Watch


----------



## Claudiu

Sven said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (This gives me an idea. Someone needs to come up with a rapture smiley. He could fly upwards leaving his pants and shirt behind or his car unmanned.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Practicing for the secret rapture:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good ones, but they don't leave pants and shirts behind.
> 
> -----Added 7/10/2009 at 06:37:09 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> cecat90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sven said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could have told you that Islam would outgrow Christianity. My rapture chart predicted it.
> 
> (This gives me an idea. Someone needs to come up with a rapture smiley. He could fly upwards leaving his pants and shirt behind or his car unmanned.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't too far from Dearborn, MI.
> How is the Muslim population where you are?
> 
> I heard there are many efforts in evangelizing to the Muslims in Dearborn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Michigan holds the largest Arab population in America. Dearborn is the tenth largest Arab community in Michigan. There are all kinds of crazy Sha'riah law type stuff going on over there that nobody ever seems to deem newsworthy. I met a woman from one Arab community in MI that is hiding from her father because she became a Christian and if he ever finds her, he will kill her. No, the authorities are not doing anything about it. There are many Chaldeans in that area, however, that are Christians who fled from their countries to escape persecution. Most of them are Reformed Baptist. There are many who are trying to evangelize Muslims. There is a great missionary opportunity right here in Michigan. This site is a good place to go to keep up with Muslim news worldwide: Jihad Watch
Click to expand...




Wow! Thanks for sharing. 
I heard similar insight on the situation there. It's unbelievable. 
A friend of mine who visited an evangelism effort taking place there. He shared with me their frustrations to the fact that there are Muslims who convert, yet because they fear of being found out they still do all the Muslim prayers and whatnot. If one converts they are deemed as an infidel, and worthy of death. The only way to live without fear of death is to escape the community, which has a big stronghold on religious politics.


----------



## Reformed Thomist

I think what we're seeing in Europe is that atheism, agnosticism, wishy-washy liberal spirituality, and what have you, is no match for religion. They don't fill voids. Islam has begun to fill the void left by the widespread rejection of Christianity.


----------



## Pergamum

I am more optimistic.

Philip Jenkins is also:


Amazon.com: The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity: Philip Jenkins: Books


----------



## Claudiu

Pergamum said:


> I am more optimistic.
> 
> Philip Jenkins is also:
> 
> 
> Amazon.com: The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity: Philip Jenkins: Books





Thanks for the recommendation.
Have you read the book?


----------



## Pergamum

cecat90 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am more optimistic.
> 
> Philip Jenkins is also:
> 
> 
> Amazon.com: The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity: Philip Jenkins: Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the recommendation.
> Have you read the book?
Click to expand...


Yes, I highly recommend it.


----------



## jonmo

I don't doubt the overall trend in Europe (I am living several hundred yards from a very Muslim area in London) but this video is full of factual and statistical errors. I started checking some of the "facts" and found many of them to completely wrong (eg, the claim that 25% of Belgium is Muslim - the highest reliable recent number I can find is 6%; the Muslim birth rate figures for the Netherlands, France are completely exaggerated; the quote from the German Federal Statistics Office is not actually from that source, etc).

It's late at night here so I've stopped Googling the real statistics but I've just found links to several websites that were coming up with similar statistics to mine. Sadly, they were then able to use the more accurate numbers to rip apart this specific video. 

That's a shame because the growth of Islam in Europe is a concern but using inaccurate and scare-mongering figures in videos doesn't help.

-----Added 7/10/2009 at 07:12:30 EST-----



Joshua said:


> It's a shame that so many professing Christians seem to despise children/having children.



What do you base that on? I have not experienced that to any discernible degree. Do you mean many Christians don't want to have large numbers of children (say, 4 or 5) or simply don't want to have them at all?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I do not know if I would count "4 or 5" as "large"...


----------



## Claudiu

Pergamum said:


> cecat90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am more optimistic.
> 
> Philip Jenkins is also:
> 
> 
> Amazon.com: The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity: Philip Jenkins: Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the recommendation.
> Have you read the book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I highly recommend it.
Click to expand...



It's on my "to read" list


----------



## Sven

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I do not know if I would count "4 or 5" as "large"...



4 or 5 is just getting stated.


----------



## Claudiu

jonmo said:


> I don't doubt the overall trend in Europe (I am living several hundred yards from a very Muslim area in London) but this video is full of factual and statistical errors. I started checking some of the "facts" and found many of them to completely wrong (eg, the claim that 25% of Belgium is Muslim - the highest reliable recent number I can find is 6%; the Muslim birth rate figures for the Netherlands, France are completely exaggerated; the quote from the German Federal Statistics Office is not actually from that source, etc).
> 
> It's late at night here so I've stopped Googling the real statistics but I've just found links to several websites that were coming up with similar statistics to mine. Sadly, they were then able to use the more accurate numbers to rip apart this specific video.
> 
> That's a shame because the growth of Islam in Europe is a concern but using inaccurate and scare-mongering figures in videos doesn't help.
> 
> -----Added 7/10/2009 at 07:12:30 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame that so many professing Christians seem to despise children/having children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you base that on? I have not experienced that to any discernible degree. Do you mean many Christians don't want to have large numbers of children (say, 4 or 5) or simply don't want to have them at all?
Click to expand...




I wasn't able to check if the statistics were accurate or not. But thanks for the insight.

-----Added 7/10/2009 at 07:19:32 EST-----



Sven said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not know if I would count "4 or 5" as "large"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4 or 5 is just getting stated.
Click to expand...


Most people I've talked to already consider 3 children as a "large family"


----------



## Sven

cecat90 said:


> Sven said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not know if I would count "4 or 5" as "large"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4 or 5 is just getting stated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people I've talked to already consider 3 children as a "large family"
Click to expand...


That's because you're from California.


----------



## Claudiu

Sven said:


> cecat90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sven said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4 or 5 is just getting stated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people I've talked to already consider 3 children as a "large family"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because you're from California.
Click to expand...


Haha, and I'm only in the suburban area of Sac (which doesn't have that many liberals- althgouh there are plenty already) and I hear that...but San Fran on the other hand is the liberals headquarters.  Imagine what one would hear from them. Actually, I did. They don't really believe in the family concept. But then again the libs there are fighting for something they call a "family"....gay marriage (which is really an oxymoron).


----------



## Hebrew Student

I agree with jonmo.

The expansion of Muslims is a problem. However, scaring people into having kids is not the answer, nor is adding to God's word some command that every married couple who can have children must have children. Such I ideas reduce who has God's truth down to who can have the most children.

I would say that every covenant community must have people who are about the task of having and raising covenant children, just as every covenant community must have elders and deacons. That has, no doubt, got to be a concern.

However, we also need to realize that Islam is an entirely anachronistic religion. The way it does its study is to read back into the New Testament period ideas that came from a man 600 years later who had never read the Hebrew Bible or the Greek New Testament. James White has done good work in pointing much of this out.

In other words, Islam is very vulnerable in the intellectual realm. What good is it to have all of those children, if you are only going to teach them something that is going to simply be refuted by Christian scholarship anyway?

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Claudiu

Hebrew Student said:


> I agree with jonmo.
> 
> The expansion of Muslims is a problem. However, scaring people into having kids is not the answer, nor is adding to God's word some command that every married couple who can have children must have children. Such I ideas reduce who has God's truth down to who can have the most children.
> 
> I would say that every covenant community must have people who are about the task of having and raising covenant children, just as every covenant community must have elders and deacons. That has, no doubt, got to be a concern.
> 
> However, we also need to realize that Islam is an entirely anachronistic religion. The way it does its study is to read back into the New Testament period ideas that came from a man 600 years later who had never read the Hebrew Bible or the Greek New Testament. James White has done good work in pointing much of this out.
> 
> In other words, Islam is very vulnerable in the intellectual realm. What good is it to have all of those children, if you are only going to teach them something that is going to simply be refuted by Christian scholarship anyway?
> 
> God Bless,
> Adam




I don't know if your response was directed at anyone here on PB...

"scaring people into having kids is not the answer"...I agree. But, I don't think anyone here was arguing for having more children to solve the problem. The video does not make that suggestion either. The video only shows the expansion of Islam in our times. At the end it does not scare people into having more kids, but rather, making a call to action: *evangelism*.

"nor is adding to God's word some command that every married couple who can have children must have children" 

I don't think anyone was arguing this point either...did someone here add to God's word some command that every married couple who can have children must have children

"Such I ideas reduce who has God's truth down to who can have the most children." 

Again I don't really think anyone was arguing for having more children. 

in my opinion evangelism seems like a better response to the growing number of non-Believers in the world...as opposed to breeding them out.


----------



## TimV

Claudiu, the important thing is that someone took the time to look at the video (I didn't since those types of videos are almost always done by liars or dumb people) and pointed out that the video was peddling false information.

We've enough to worry about without making things up, brother.


----------



## Claudiu

TimV said:


> Claudiu, the important thing is that someone took the time to look at the video (I didn't since those types of videos are almost always done by liars or dumb people) and pointed out that the video was peddling false information.
> 
> We've enough to worry about without making things up, brother.





Point taken


----------



## kvanlaan

> The expansion of Muslims is a problem. However, scaring people into having kids is not the answer, nor is adding to God's word some command that every married couple who can have children must have children. Such I ideas reduce who has God's truth down to who can have the most children.



*Scaring* people into having children???? God's own Word says very plainly that they are a *blessing*. You don't _scare_ people into it, God blesses these families as He will. He open and closes the womb, we're not vermin that breed without thought or purpose.

That being said, telling God that _He_ may call it a blessing, but you've got a 'better' idea seems to me just a tad unbiblical.

Islam will help separate the sheep from the goats. I _love_ Pergy's take on the immigration/breeding (from an earlier thread): the fields are now white with harvest *here*, we need not go half way around the world to take the Word to the Muslims.


----------



## Hebrew Student

cecat90,



> I don't think anyone was arguing this point either...did someone here add to God's word some command that every married couple who can have children must have children



No, my point was to take several solutions the Christian church is pedaling to this issue, and point out that we are thinking about this problem all wrong, because our solutions are all wrong.

While people on this thread may not have argued this, there are many people who argue that deliberate childlessness is a sin. I am just pointing out that the church is doing everything it can to avoid solving the population problem Biblically. I have found that there are wonderful solutions to this problem in scripture, but we seem to be a culture of reaction rather than calm and careful reasoning. I fear that, because of that, these social problems will remain.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## TimV

> While people on this thread may not have argued this, there are many people who argue that deliberate childlessness is a sin.



It is.


----------



## Hebrew Student

kvanlaan,



> Scaring people into having children???? God's own Word says very plainly that they are a blessing. You don't scare people into it, God blesses these families as He will. He open and closes the womb, we're not vermin that breed without thought or purpose.
> 
> That being said, telling God that He may call it a blessing, but you've got a 'better' idea seems to me just a tad unbiblical.



Children being a blessing is totally irrelevant to the subject. The only way it would be relevant is if you are trying to argue that, if something is a blessing, you must pursue it. However, that is logically problematic. For example, it is a blessing to have a Phd in Hebrew Bible. However, are you currently pursuing a Phd in Hebrew Bible?

Also, you say God opens and closes the womb. As Calvinists, we believe God causes all things. In fact, the Bible says that God raises up nations. Now, don't you agree that it would be rather silly for Egyptians to have avoided battling the Hittites because the Hittites were an up and coming power, and it is God who raises up nations?

Again, as is always the case in this discussion, I see no exegesis from people who argue this way. 

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Confessor

Reformed Thomist said:


> I think what we're seeing in Europe is that atheism, agnosticism, wishy-washy liberal spirituality, and what have you, is no match for religion. They don't fill voids. Islam has begun to fill the void left by the widespread rejection of Christianity.



_Excellent_ observation.

Might I add that whether or not the statistics are accurate, if the world *is* at some point enveloped by the dark curtain of Islam, that will make the subsequent triumph of the Gospel that much more glorious.


----------



## Claudiu

Hebrew Student said:


> cecat90,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone was arguing this point either...did someone here add to God's word some command that every married couple who can have children must have children
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, my point was to take several solutions the Christian church is pedaling to this issue, and point out that we are thinking about this problem all wrong, because our solutions are all wrong.
> 
> While people on this thread may not have argued this, there are many people who argue that deliberate childlessness is a sin. I am just pointing out that the church is doing everything it can to avoid solving the population problem Biblically. I have found that there are wonderful solutions to this problem in scripture, but we seem to be a culture of reaction rather than calm and careful reasoning. I fear that, because of that, these social problems will remain.
> 
> God Bless,
> Adam
Click to expand...




Ok, I see what you mean. I understand where you are coming from with that. For example, I know many eastern Europeans who tend to have large families and look down upon couples that don't have kids. Some even argue "that deliberate childlessness is a sin."


----------



## kvanlaan

> Children being a blessing is totally irrelevant to the subject. The only way it would be relevant is if you are trying to argue that, if something is a blessing, you must pursue it. However, that is logically problematic. For example, it is a blessing to have a Phd in Hebrew Bible. However, are you currently pursuing a Phd in Hebrew Bible?



False.

When we as married couples decide to take measures to halt conception, that is taking measures to take God's sovereignty into our hands (and by our actions saying that we do not want His blessings - thus 'we have a better idea'). It is not logically problematic, but it is biblical.

Man and wife are to freely consummate their relationship. We may not deprive each other, save by mutual consent, so that we may devote our time to prayer. What is the product of that consummation? Children.

Please, exegete away.

-----Added 7/10/2009 at 10:16:34 EST-----



> For example, I know many eastern Europeans who tend to have large families and look down upon couples that don't have kids.



This act of looking down on others is a sin. But it is completely divorced from the issue at hand.

-----Added 7/10/2009 at 10:18:08 EST-----



> Also, you say God opens and closes the womb. As Calvinists, we believe God causes all things. In fact, the Bible says that God raises up nations. Now, don't you agree that it would be rather silly for Egyptians to have avoided battling the Hittites because the Hittites were an up and coming power, and it is God who raises up nations?



I'm not a big fan of fish. Please take the red herrings off the menu.


----------



## christianyouth

We really don't know what God's will is in this matter. Maybe God wants to use Islam to whittle us down until we are just a small, embattled group of Christians believing something that is totally ridiculous to the world and living like loons(loving loons, but loons) in the eyes of most people. It would be rough if that happened, but I could see us regaining a vital Christian witness that I think has been lost when Christianity stopped being a separatist movement.

I'm also skeptical of Philip Jenkins and his optimism. He argues in _God's Continent_ that we shouldn't be alarmed about the rise of Islam in Europe, because it's a secular, pluralistic environment, and other fundamentalist religions(Christianity) have not been able to thrive there. But the Christianity of most people is not nearly as life-encompassing or community oriented as Islam is. What do most Christians do? Well, according statistics I've heard, most Christians don't even go to church. They aren't even part of a community. And from my experience, those who do go to church can't be said to have a radically Christian way of viewing the world. I don't see how that classifies as a fundamentalist religion, except for maybe the emphasis on the exclusivity of Christ. 


Also Muslims are separatists, in most cases. They speak their own language, they go to their own schools, their main associations are with other people of the same faith; they have a degree of separatism that Christianity has not had in a long time. With that distance from Western culture which so many of them have, even when living in Western Culture, how do we know that they will suffer the same attrition as Christians have suffered? I feel that Philip Jenkins didn't focus enough on that difference, that Islam is a separatist movement and is therefore not as susceptible to be contaminated by the culture as other religions.

Hey I'm not too qualified, these are just my thoughts. Jenkins could be right and Islam could become secularized, but the impression I get from all of my media intake is that it's not happening. If he's expressing false optimism on the issue of Islam in Europe, I just wouldn't be too surprised if he is expressing false optimism over the rise of Christianity. Again, from my reading on the subject, with Mark Noll saying that the type of Christianity spreading all over is Charismatic in nature, and then with Joel Osteen coming on my TV every Sunday at 8, it's hard for me to believe that Christianity is spreading.

BUT, I haven't read the book. I will put it on the list.


----------



## Claudiu

"This act of looking down on others is a sin. *But it is completely divorced from the issue at hand*." .....ok?


----------



## christianyouth

TimV said:


> While people on this thread may not have argued this, there are many people who argue that deliberate childlessness is a sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is.
Click to expand...


Tim, do you mean it's a sin for someone to choose a life of celibate, singleness?

I doubt you would mean that, I just want to be sure. You never know what you'll hear over the Internet.


----------



## kvanlaan

> "This act of looking down on others is a sin. But it is completely divorced from the issue at hand." .....ok?



That is, it has nothing to do with procreating in our union as man and wife. It is a sin, yes, to behave this way. But it neither advances nor defends either side of the argument, as it is not related to whether or not it is a sin to purposefully remain childless.

-----Added 7/10/2009 at 10:30:58 EST-----



> Tim, do you mean it's a sin for someone to choose to pursue celibacy?



Sorry, don't mean to speak for Tim, but I would say that in regards to a married couple, yes, it is.


----------



## TimV

> Tim, do you mean it's a sin for someone to choose a life of celibate, singleness?
> 
> I doubt you would mean that, I just want to be sure. You never know what you'll hear over the Internet.



There is no possible way for you to have interpreted what I said to have meant that, given the context. Please go back and read the whole thread.


----------



## christianyouth

TimV said:


> Tim, do you mean it's a sin for someone to choose a life of celibate, singleness?
> 
> I doubt you would mean that, I just want to be sure. You never know what you'll hear over the Internet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no possible way for you to have interpreted what I said to have meant that, given the context. Please go back and read the whole thread.
Click to expand...


No really, I have actually heard it argued that celibacy was a sin, because when God created man he gave the command to be fruitful and multiply. I read the whole thread, and I really wasn't sure if you were saying that(not nitpicking).


----------



## TimV

> No really, I have actually heard it argued that celibacy was a sin, because when God created man he gave the command to be fruitful and multiply. I read the whole thread, and I really wasn't sure if you were saying that(not nitpicking).



Scripture is clear, that celibacy is good for those to whom that gift has been given. And Scripture is clear that celibacy is bad for those to whom that particular gift has not been given.


----------



## christianyouth

TimV said:


> No really, I have actually heard it argued that celibacy was a sin, because when God created man he gave the command to be fruitful and multiply. I read the whole thread, and I really wasn't sure if you were saying that(not nitpicking).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture is clear, that celibacy is good for those to whom that gift has been given. And Scripture is clear that celibacy is bad for those to whom that particular gift has not been given.
Click to expand...


Ah, amen. Thanks for clearing it up.

*continue with the very interesting thread*


----------



## Claudiu

christianyouth said:


> We really don't know what God's will is in this matter. Maybe God wants to use Islam to whittle us down until we are just a small, embattled group of Christians believing something that is totally ridiculous to the world and living like loons(loving loons, but loons) in the eyes of most people. It would be rough if that happened, but I could see us regaining a vital Christian witness that I think has been lost when Christianity stopped being a separatist movement.





Thats an interesting way of looking at.


----------



## Hebrew Student

kvanlann,



> False.
> 
> When we as married couples decide to take measures to halt conception, that is taking measures to take God's sovereignty into our hands (and by our actions saying that we do not want His blessings - thus 'we have a better idea'). It is not logically problematic, but it is biblical.
> 
> Man and wife are to freely consummate their relationship. We may not deprive each other, save by mutual consent, so that we may devote our time to prayer. What is the product of that consummation? Children.
> 
> Please, exegete away.



Actually, you are the one stating that this is wrong, so, it is incumbent upon you to show that there is something in the Hebrew term _berakah_ that has anything to do with saying someone who doesn't pursue it doesn't want God's blessings, or that they are trying to control God's sovereignty. Note the actual way in which this term is used in scripture, and see if it fits your logic:

In Leviticus 25:21, crops are called a blessing. Does that mean that anyone who does not plant seeds is somehow saying that they are "taking God's sovereignty into their own hands" [remember too that the Torah also speaks of God as the one who gives Israel crops] and saying that they do not want God's blessings? In fact, apparently, an increase in crops is considered a blessing [Deuteronomy 28:2, 4]. Apparently, we are also trying to control God's sovereignty when we are not farmers. We are also trying to control God's sovereignty if we are farmers, and we plant an amount of seed that would, at max, yield the same produce as the year before. Apparently, if we don't want his blessing of crops, we have a better idea.

Again, there are many examples of this term in the Hebrew Bible. There is nothing in the context of this word to say that it is violating God's sovereignty and saying we don't want his blessings, and there is nothing in the word itself that says that we are violating God's sovereignty and don't want his blessings. If there is nothing in the word, and nothing in the context, what should that tell you? It should tell you that it is total eisegesis to read the text in this fashion.

You also never addressed my arguments. Were the Egyptians trying to violate God's sovereignty by fighting the up and coming Hittites since it is God who raises nations up? By you not pursuing a Phd in Hebrew Bible [given that, after all, the Bible does say that "Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights" (James 1:17)] are you somehow saying that you do not want God's blessing?

Again, the problem is that God has given humankind so many blessings that to pursue them all is impossible from a human perspective. Every good thing comes down to us as God's blessing, as James 1:17 says. Hence, to pursue every single blessing of God is logically impossible.

Again, I see no exegesis from your side of this discussion.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## christianyouth

cecat90 said:


> Thats an interesting way of looking at.



Well, The Christian witness of the church is compromised when we create an environment where false converts thrive. Paul is so concerned with maintaining a pure community, that he argues for either barring church membership or for just general avoidance of believers who live inconsistent with the truth they profess, depending upon how you interpret the last verses in 1 Cor. 5, and in Ephesians says that sinful practices should not even be *mentioned* among believers. 

What would be a faster way to get a pure assembly than to live under the dominion of a blood thirsty Caliphate?


----------



## kvanlaan

> Again, I see no exegesis from your side of this discussion.



Then please open your bible to 1 Cor 7 - which I paraphrased above. Argue in that context and we're cooking. If you simply stick your fingers in your ears and sing "la la la la la la", we will continue to spin our wheels.

I am arguing that to _prevent_ his blessing is sin. However, it is fairly clear from the exact same passage that, with regards to Tim's position, if you participate in this Scripturally ordained behaviour, and God chooses to bless you with children, you will in fact end up with children. 



> In Leviticus 25:21, crops are called a blessing. Does that mean that anyone who does not plant seeds is somehow saying that they are "taking God's sovereignty into their own hands" [remember too that the Torah also speaks of God as the one who gives Israel crops] and saying that they do not want God's blessings? In fact, apparently, an increase in crops is considered a blessing [Deuteronomy 28:2, 4]. Apparently, we are also trying to control God's sovereignty when we are not farmers. We are also trying to control God's sovereignty if we are farmers, and we plant an amount of seed that would, at max, yield the same produce as the year before. Apparently, if we don't want his blessing of crops, we have a better idea.



This is just odd.


----------



## Curt

cecat90 said:


> Also, when I use Christianity I mean it in the sense that it is used in statistics where all denominations fall under. While there are many people that are considered "Christians" we know the number is a lot lower (the number of actual Christians). So Islam passed the number of actual believers a while ago.



Do we, here. assume that all who call themselves Muslim are "true believers"? I'm sure that this is not the case.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Again, the problem is that God has given humankind so many blessings that to pursue them all is impossible from a human perspective. Every good thing comes down to us as God's blessing, as James 1:17 says. Hence, to pursue every single blessing of God is logically impossible.



We are acting under some assumptions early on in this discussion, one of which is that this is a married couple. Josh made a comment that it is sad that the church does not encourage large families. The fundamental building block of families being, of course, married couples. And then, based on that fundamental, we are talking about why they will not stand to do what comes naturally from that relationship. We are not saying that everyone must run off and become a farmer, or else they are denying God's blessings, that's ludicrous.


----------



## Hebrew Student

kvanlaan,

Again, is it not preventing a blessing from God to not plant crops, since crops are called a blessing of God? Is it not preventing a blessing from God to not pursue a Phd in Hebrew Bible since that is likewise a blessing from God? That is the argument. The argument makes no sense when you just see the term "blessing," and automatically assume what you are assuming.

BTW, with regards to 1 Corinthians 7, I *do* believe that couples must have *sexual relations.* I just don't believe that it is wrong to prevent the bearing of children, and the exegetical arguments I have seen for deliberate childlessness being wrong are just really bad. They are inconsistent, and they do not follow the context, grammar, and structure of any passage of scripture. That is why I said that I have not heard any exegesis from your side.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Claudiu

Curt said:


> cecat90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, when I use Christianity I mean it in the sense that it is used in statistics where all denominations fall under. While there are many people that are considered "Christians" we know the number is a lot lower (the number of actual Christians). So Islam passed the number of actual believers a while ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we, here. assume that all who call themselves Muslim are "true believers"? I'm sure that this is not the case.
Click to expand...


That's a good point you bring up. I don't think every person who says they're Muslim is truly Muslim. However, I do think there are more people who say that they are Christians, when in reality they aren't.


----------



## Hebrew Student

kvanlaan,

I brought up the point because I pointed out how making videos with false information to scare people is just another way we are not solving this problem Biblically. The church simply does not want to deal with the problems of infertility in a way that is consistent with scripture. Instead, we resort to scare tactics, and start making up commands to insert into scripture in order to try to fix the problem. Scripture has solutions to these problems if we just let it speak for itself, but, I am afraid that is not what we as a church are willing to do on this issue.



> The fundamental building block of families being, of course, married couples. And then, based on that fundamental, we are talking about why they will not stand to do what comes naturally from that relationship.



Well, again, you used the argument that children were a blessing. Now, if you want to use this argument, it is also natural for bacteria to come in, and kill someone. Does that mean it was wrong for us to make antibiotics? Again, this makes no sense.

Also, finally, I would point out that farming is one of the most natural ways of getting food. Farming and hunting were, for a long time, the most fundamental ways one could obtain their food. Since these are fundamental ways of working to obtain food, why doesn't everyone make a carrier out of farming?

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## kvanlaan

> Again, is it not preventing a blessing from God to not plant crops, since crops are called a blessing of God? Is it not preventing a blessing from God to not pursue a Phd in Hebrew Bible since that is likewise a blessing from God? That is the argument. The argument makes no sense when you just see the term "blessing," and automatically assume what you are assuming.



No, no, no. If I am a farmer and I state that I am a farmer, that my intent is to grow crops, and I then refuse to plant crops, then I am an idiot. If I am a student in the college of Biblical Hebrew linguistic studies, sign up for the PhD program, am accepted, and then refuse to write a thesis on the basis that I don't like the color of my advising professor's socks, then I am likewise an idiot. And yes, sin is involved in this at some point in both cases.

But for me, as a father and a financial services provider, to refuse to plant a wheat crop in the back yard based on someone's insistence that I do so, is completely OK. That is not my calling and I have not entered into a covenant to farm wheat. There is no context for me growing wheat.

However, in the other case, I have boldly and before my pastor and wife and family and friends entered into a covenant to love my wife, both emotionally and physically, and, if God wills it, our natural behaviour within the context of that covenant will produce children. Full stop. Why is this so hard to understand?

-----Added 7/10/2009 at 11:27:55 EST-----

And for us to then say that we refuse to accept the natural consequences of that union (to remain *deliberately childless*) is simply not biblical. Children are a blessing from the Lord and those children are a natural product of a marriage, if God wills it.


----------



## Hebrew Student

kvanlaan,



> However, in the other case, I have boldly and before my pastor and wife and family and friends entered into a covenant to love my wife, both emotionally and physically, and, if God wills it, our natural behaviour within the context of that covenant will produce children. Full stop. Why is this so hard to understand?



Again, kvanlaan, no one denies that, if God wants you to have children, you will have children, end of discussion. However, where are you getting this idea that getting married is an automatic commitment to having children? That is what doesn't follow, and what I am asking to be proven from scripture.

Also, I would point out that one of the fundamental natural way for humans to get food was by farming, as God himself said in Genesis 1:29. Shouldn't we, in order to get food, be doing what is most "natural" to us?



> And for us to then say that we refuse to accept the natural consequences of that union (to remain deliberately childless) is simply not biblical.



Again, this is what you need to prove.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## kvanlaan

> I brought up the point because I pointed out how making videos with false information to scare people is just another way we are not solving this problem Biblically. The church simply does not want to deal with the problems of infertility in a way that is consistent with scripture. Instead, we resort to scare tactics, and start making up commands to insert into scripture in order to try to fix the problem. *Scripture has solutions to these problems if we just let it speak for itself, but, I am afraid that is not what we as a church are willing to do on this issue.*



Look, the answer is ALWAYS the gospel; for any problem, even tiny ones. I agree, 100%.

My son has zits that he doesn't like. The answer is still the gospel, in that he will then find his identity in Christ and not in his looks.

I don't think you will find anyone that disagrees with your statement bolded above. But the statements previous to that in the same paragraph are waaaay off the reservation. 

This video does not say to me: "Christians! Start having kids or die a martyr's death!" But I do see here that the church has bought into the world's nonsense both in general and indeed _with regards to how many children we should have._ That to me is plain as day.




> The fundamental building block of families being, of course, married couples. And then, based on that fundamental, we are talking about why they will not stand to do what comes naturally from that relationship.
> 
> Well, again, you used the argument that children were a blessing. Now, if you want to use this argument, it is also natural for bacteria to come in, and kill someone. Does that mean it was wrong for us to make antibiotics? Again, this makes no sense.
> 
> Also, finally, I would point out that farming is one of the most natural ways of getting food. Farming and hunting were, for a long time, the most fundamental ways one could obtain their food. Since these are fundamental ways of working to obtain food, why doesn't everyone make a carrier out of farming?



I still can't get my head around how this is relevant in a logical way.


----------



## Hebrew Student

kvanlaan,



> But I do see that the church has bought into the world's nonsense with regards to how many children we should have. That to me is plain as day.



Actually, I agree with this. Whether we have children, and the number of children we have should be based upon how we are serving God, and not our own likes, dislikes, etc. As the Apostle Paul said, no matter what we do, it needs to be done to the glory of God. I think, it necessitates the having and raising of covenant children as a ministry of the church, much like the elder or deacon. While everyone is not obligated to have children, every covenant community is obligated to have people who are about this task, and every member of the covenant community needs to be serving God [and not themselves] in some way. The problem is, we have too many people who will not do hard ministry work like having and raising covenant children, because they would rather use the time and money for themselves.

That being said, I don't think that necessitates having children if you can.

God Bless,
Adam

-----Added 7/10/2009 at 11:47:34 EST-----

Kvanlaan,



> I still can't get my head around how this is relevant in a logical way.



Simple. God gave farming as the most fundamental natural way of obtaining food in Genesis 1:29. Because of this, we must all obtain our food in this way, according to you logic, since God both gave it to us as our natural means for food, and called it a blessing.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## kvanlaan

While I'm looking, chew on these:



> Martin Luther
> "People who do not like children are swine, dunces, and blockheads, not worthy to be called men and women, because they despise the blessing of God, the Creator and Author of marriage"
> 
> John Calvin
> "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring."
> "..birth control is the murder of future persons."



Also, read this thread: 
http://www.puritanboard.com/f32/does-bible-permit-birth-control-2050/

We have:
1. Be fruitful and multiply (as a command)
2. Children are a blessing from the Lord
3. 1 Cor 7

Add them up and you have children as a God-ordained blessing coming as a natural result of marriage.

-----Added 7/10/2009 at 11:56:28 EST-----



> Simple. *God gave farming as the most fundamental natural way of obtaining food* in Genesis 1:29. Because of this, we must all obtain our food in this way, according to you logic, since God both gave it to us as our natural means for food, and called it a blessing.



No he did not - he gave us Eden. Farming was a punishment after the fall. Please, let's drop the red herrings and intentional obtuse-ness.


----------



## Hebrew Student

kvanlaan,



> No he did not - he gave us Eden. Farming was a punishment after the fall. Please, let's drop the red herrings and intentional obtuse-ness.



Then please explain this verse:

Genesis 2:15 Then the Lord God took the man, and placed him in the Garden of Eden _*to work it and to keep it*_.

What was the working and keeping if not gardening? What other kind of work do you do in a garden.

Farming was not a punishment of the fall. The pain and toil involved in farming [3:17-19] were the curse of the fall.



> We have:
> Be fruitful and multiply (as a command)



I have actually done quite a bit of work on this passage. See my exegesis of the passage here:

Exegesis of Genesis 1:26-28 Old Testament Studies Blog

Also, Luther and Calvin were not infallible. I have every right to disagree with them if they are not consistent with scripture.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## kvanlaan

I'm not suggesting that Adam had a chair to sit in 24/7 and do nothing, save for cavorting with Eve. I _am_ saying that "keeping" the garden of Eden and 'farming' as we know it are not the same thing. Farming as we know it is farming after the fall. I would trust that you would agree with that.

However, at this point in time, we are quibbling over minutiae and not addressing the issue at hand. I am unable to continue to go down these rabbit trails as I have to awake in six hours. Perhaps we can pick this up tomorrow some time...

Good evening.


----------



## Claudiu

We should probably start a new thread to carry on the discussion, as it has moved from World Religions (Islam), into a different topic.


----------



## Hebrew Student

kvanlaan,



> I'm not suggesting that Adam had a chair to sit in 24/7 and do nothing, save for cavorting with Eve. I am saying that "keeping" the garden of Eden and 'farming' as we know it are not the same thing. Farming as we know it is farming after the fall. I would trust that you would agree with that.



I never said that you were suggesting that Adam had a chair to sit in 24/7. Really, the only thing I need for this argument is that it was the production of food. That's it. God calls it a blessing, he gives it to us as our fundamental food supply, therefore, the reductio is complete. If you think that they were working and tilling the ground for some other reason, then I would be curious as to what it is, given that the context is a garden with food.

Secondly, you are mistaking a rabbit trail for refutation by analogy. I am trying to show that this logic cannot be held the whole way through the discussion, and that I can use your logic to prove absurd things [such as the idea that everyone must be a farmer], as well as proving that deliberate childlessness is a sin. This is a perfectly rational line of argumentation.

Addendum:

Better yet, maybe I should simply challange you to tell me where scripture says that it is sin to reject a blessing that would naturally follow if not prevented. Where does scripture argue in this manner? Not only that, what is the difference between something that naturally follows from something you do, and something that is within your grasp, if you would just reach out an grab it? Why is one "saying you don't want God's blessing," and the other not? Again, these categories just strike me as totally unbiblical.



> Good evening.



Good Evening!

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Pergamum

kvanlaan said:


> While I'm looking, chew on these:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Luther
> "People who do not like children are swine, dunces, and blockheads, not worthy to be called men and women, because they despise the blessing of God, the Creator and Author of marriage"
> 
> John Calvin
> "The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring."
> "..birth control is the murder of future persons."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, read this thread:
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f32/does-bible-permit-birth-control-2050/
> 
> We have:
> 1. Be fruitful and multiply (as a command)
> 2. Children are a blessing from the Lord
> 3. 1 Cor 7
> 
> Add them up and you have children as a God-ordained blessing coming as a natural result of marriage.
> 
> -----Added 7/10/2009 at 11:56:28 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple. *God gave farming as the most fundamental natural way of obtaining food* in Genesis 1:29. Because of this, we must all obtain our food in this way, according to you logic, since God both gave it to us as our natural means for food, and called it a blessing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he did not - he gave us Eden. Farming was a punishment after the fall. Please, let's drop the red herrings and intentional obtuse-ness.
Click to expand...


Birth control is NOT the murder of future peoples. That is silly. 


All coitus need not maximize one's chances of pregnancy. Elsewise, there would be no sex outside of a women's fertile time nor when she was already pregnant, lest semen fall on barren soil.

Let's not equate reproduction with holiness. Dogs breed more prodigiously than we do.

As it pertains to Islam, spiritual solutions ought to be sought. Yet this OP has taken the strange turn of focusing on outbreeding the enemy.


----------



## Claudiu

Pergamum said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> As it pertains to Islam, spiritual solutions ought to be sought. Yet this OP has taken the strange turn of focusing on outbreeding the enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that
Click to expand...


----------



## kvanlaan

> Birth control is NOT the murder of future peoples. That is silly.
> 
> *All coitus need not maximize one's chances of pregnancy.* Elsewise, there would be no sex outside of a women's fertile time nor when she was already pregnant, lest semen fall on barren soil.
> 
> Let's not equate reproduction with holiness. Dogs breed more prodigiously than we do.



The quote from Calvin was something I saw on another thread and thought was interesting - there's no way I would ever try to defend that!

This is true, it need not be about trying to get pregnant every time. But I don't think anyone is arguing that. It is when we deliberately step into the process and say "I don't want that".

The problem of Islam is not going to be cured by pew-warmers, there is no question. The gospel is the only solution. I think in reality, this was a two-post thread, had the whole childbirth thing not entered into it. 

ie: 
Post #1: Isalm is growing, what are we going to do?
Post #2: Bring the gospel to them (maybe PM Pergy).
Done.

Pergs, the whole dog comment is just not on. We are image bearers of God, the pinnacle of creation, not rutting swine. He opens and closes the womb, it's not about breeding or equating breeding with holiness; no one made that argument.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

For those wondering Kvanlaan's Calvin quote is from his commentary on Onan's Sin in Genesis.

-----Added 7/11/2009 at 10:37:03 EST-----

Even though this a RCC website it has the Calvin quote along with ones from the Church Fathers and Luther and Wesley on this subject. It also shows that this was an issue none of us disagreed on prior to the 1930's.

Birth Control


----------



## Pergamum

kvanlaan said:


> Birth control is NOT the murder of future peoples. That is silly.
> 
> *All coitus need not maximize one's chances of pregnancy.* Elsewise, there would be no sex outside of a women's fertile time nor when she was already pregnant, lest semen fall on barren soil.
> 
> Let's not equate reproduction with holiness. Dogs breed more prodigiously than we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The quote from Calvin was something I saw on another thread and thought was interesting - there's no way I would ever try to defend that!
> 
> This is true, it need not be about trying to get pregnant every time. But I don't think anyone is arguing that. It is when we deliberately step into the process and say "I don't want that".
> 
> The problem of Islam is not going to be cured by pew-warmers, there is no question. The gospel is the only solution. I think in reality, this was a two-post thread, had the whole childbirth thing not entered into it.
> 
> ie:
> Post #1: Isalm is growing, what are we going to do?
> Post #2: Bring the gospel to them (maybe PM Pergy).
> Done.
> 
> Pergs, the whole dog comment is just not on. We are image bearers of God, the pinnacle of creation, not rutting swine. He opens and closes the womb, it's not about breeding or equating breeding with holiness; no one made that argument.
Click to expand...



Regarding rutting swine:

On the PB there have been several posts about couples with large families. Each time this was met with approval. However, what was sometimes lacking was the approval of how they raised the kids rather than how fertile they were. 

Sort of like, "The news just said so-and-so just had their 14th child..." and then an unqualified good is given. 

I have seen several very fertile families have terrible offspring and so I just wanted to make sure we were also focusing on quality and not just quantity here.



Having children is not as praiseworthy as raising the ones we have with care.

-----Added 7/11/2009 at 11:33:58 EST-----

But again, we should be thinking of Conversion Growth in the Muslim world; not mere Biological Growth in our own.


----------



## Southern Twang

I think one of the aspects of the growth of Islam is their dominion orientation. Like it or not, they believe their law pertains to society, while most Christians today detest Biblical law in this function (I am referring to antinomians and non-Theonomists). They have a game plan. We don't.

Islam also appears to be very masculine. Christianity is leaning toward the feminine. What this means, I'm not sure. But it is an interesting premise if I am correct. Men lead, while women nuture. I need sometime to think on this.

I am trying to strike at the apparent potency of Islam and the impotency of Christianity. Something is obviously wrong.


----------



## Pergamum

Anytime you tell a bunch of warlike tribes that they can take women as their booty, have mutliple wives and kill with God's sanction, that particular religion is going to grow through strenous efforts to conquer. 

Is that the sort of dominion you want?

Making women possessions of men I guess is masculine, but is this the masculinity we want?


Christianity, on the other hand, has empowered the weak and the NT gives much freedom to women.

Let's not apologize for the "weakness" of Christianity. Christians have always served, and died for their faith instead of dominating others. 

Allah sends the sons of Muslims to kill for their faith, God has sent His Son to die for us, and we ought to send our sons to serve and even die for the good of others.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Claudiu

Pergamum said:


> Anytime you tell a bunch of warlike tribes that they can take women as their booty, have mutliple wives and kill with God's sanction, that particular religion is going to grow through strenous efforts to conquer.
> 
> Is that the sort of dominion you want?
> 
> Making women possessions of men I guess is masculine, but is this the masculinity we want?
> 
> 
> Christianity, on the other hand, has empowered the weak and the NT gives much freedom to women.
> 
> Let's not apologize for the "weakness" of Christianity. Christians have always served, and died for their faith instead of dominating others.
> 
> Allah sends the sons of Muslims to kill for their faith, God has sent His Son to die for us, and we ought to send our sons to serve and even die for the good of others.





On a similar note, it seems to me that the Islam also runs on fear. If one does not follow the rules they can be killed.


----------



## TimV

> I am trying to strike at the apparent potency of Islam and the impotency of Christianity. Something is obviously wrong.



Neocon scare tactics and Fundamentalist "scholarship" aside, Spain by itself has a bigger GDP than all the Arab nations in the world combined.

The French or British navy by themselves could sink all the warships of every Muslim nation on earth, even fighting them all at the same time.

Muslim nations are poor, we are rich. Muslim nations are weak, we are strong. Muslim nations are failures, we put people on the moon. 

When thinking about Muslim manliness, add up the Olympic gold medals for all Muslim athletes combined, then pick a small European nation like Norway and see how the medal comparison looks.


----------



## Claudiu

TimV said:


> I am trying to strike at the apparent potency of Islam and the impotency of Christianity. Something is obviously wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neocon scare tactics and Fundamentalist "scholarship" aside, Spain by itself has a bigger GDP than all the Arab nations in the world combined.
> 
> The French or British navy by themselves could sink all the warships of every Muslim nation on earth, even fighting them all at the same time.
> 
> Muslim nations are poor, we are rich. Muslim nations are weak, we are strong. Muslim nations are failures, we put people on the moon.
> 
> When thinking about Muslim manliness, add up the Olympic gold medals for all Muslim athletes combined, then pick a small European nation like Norway and see how the medal comparison looks.
Click to expand...


----------



## kvanlaan

> Regarding rutting swine:
> 
> On the PB there have been several posts about couples with large families. Each time this was met with approval. However, what was sometimes lacking was the approval of how they raised the kids rather than how fertile they were.
> 
> Sort of like, "The news just said so-and-so just had their 14th child..." and then an unqualified good is given.
> 
> I have seen several very fertile families have terrible offspring and so I just wanted to make sure we were also focusing on quality and not just quantity here.
> 
> Having children is not as praiseworthy as raising the ones we have with care.
> 
> But again, we should be thinking of Conversion Growth in the Muslim world; not mere Biological Growth in our own.



Pergy, we are a confessional board (to start on the inner-most ring of our community of believers). If I hear that Pastor Lewis had #'s 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22, I would say "Praise God!!!" because I know that much of his reason for living is to raise his children to be a living sacrifice to the Lord. I will also get excited about _any_ devout Christian family that has many offspring because those are God-given soldiers of Christ and their families will focus their energies on raising their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. If they do not, that is an issue to be raised at the next _huisbezoek_, and is a serious failing - like having a beautiful Ferrari but driving it at 200mph without insurance, a driver's license, and with one's eyes closed.

My point there is that "are they being raised properly?" is (or at least should be) a non-issue within this context. I don't get excited when non-believers or lacksadaisical believing parents have 20 children (and I find this exceedingly rare anyway, most unbelievers are too selfish to have many children). But when it is the believing lacksadaisical parents that have that many children, I have the opportunity (actually, the responsibility) of calling attention to it. However, I have never met a Christian family with many children that did not see the raising of their children to be a hugely important issue. 

I agree that properly raising what we've got is more important than trying to just have as many as is possible; that's a no-brainer. But what raised the hackles of the QF-ish-types among us is not that people aren't trying to have as many as possible, it's that people are saying "I don't want the blessings that the Lord has promised in scripture by virtue of the covenant that my wife and I have entered into". Yes, I realise that God is sovereign and there's not a condom in the world that can prevent His will from being done. _It is instead the act of defiance itself and the attitude that goes with it that is the issue._

I am attempting to raise the kind of children that the World is in desperate need of. I am attempting to raise children that will bring the gospel to their street, town, city, county, province, nation, and planet. In doing this, I am NOT going above and beyond the call of duty, but merely fulfilling the most basic of obligations in raising my children properly in God's eyes.

Honestly, when people tell my wife that it is irresponsible to have this many children (due to environmental/population issues, etc.), she will say "but the world _needs_ my children."


----------



## Pergamum

kvanlaan said:


> Regarding rutting swine:
> 
> On the PB there have been several posts about couples with large families. Each time this was met with approval. However, what was sometimes lacking was the approval of how they raised the kids rather than how fertile they were.
> 
> Sort of like, "The news just said so-and-so just had their 14th child..." and then an unqualified good is given.
> 
> I have seen several very fertile families have terrible offspring and so I just wanted to make sure we were also focusing on quality and not just quantity here.
> 
> Having children is not as praiseworthy as raising the ones we have with care.
> 
> But again, we should be thinking of Conversion Growth in the Muslim world; not mere Biological Growth in our own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergy, we are a confessional board (to start on the inner-most ring of our community of believers). If I hear that Pastor Lewis had #'s 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22, I would say "Praise God!!!" because I know that much of his reason for living is to raise his children to be a living sacrifice to the Lord. I will also get excited about _any_ devout Christian family that has many offspring because those are God-given soldiers of Christ and their families will focus their energies on raising their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. If they do not, that is an issue to be raised at the next _huisbezoek_, and is a serious failing - like having a beautiful Ferrari but driving it at 200mph without insurance, a driver's license, and with one's eyes closed.
> 
> My point there is that "are they being raised properly?" is (or at least should be) a non-issue within this context. I don't get excited when non-believers or lacksadaisical believing parents have 20 children (and I find this exceedingly rare anyway, most unbelievers are too selfish to have many children). But when it is the believing lacksadaisical parents that have that many children, I have the opportunity (actually, the responsibility) of calling attention to it. However, I have never met a Christian family with many children that did not see the raising of their children to be a hugely important issue.
> 
> I agree that properly raising what we've got is more important than trying to just have as many as is possible; that's a no-brainer. But what raised the hackles of the QF-ish-types among us is not that people aren't trying to have as many as possible, it's that people are saying "I don't want the blessings that the Lord has promised in scripture by virtue of the covenant that my wife and I have entered into". Yes, I realise that God is sovereign and there's not a condom in the world that can prevent His will from being done. _It is instead the act of defiance itself and the attitude that goes with it that is the issue._
> 
> I am attempting to raise the kind of children that the World is in desperate need of. I am attempting to raise children that will bring the gospel to their street, town, city, county, province, nation, and planet. In doing this, I am NOT going above and beyond the call of duty, but merely fulfilling the most basic of obligations in raising my children properly in God's eyes.
> 
> Honestly, when people tell my wife that it is irresponsible to have this many children (due to environmental/population issues, etc.), she will say "but the world _needs_ my children."
Click to expand...


Okay, you made your point. I agree. If I disagreed at any point, I'll repent in ashes and then sing you my little ditty:

You're right, I'm wrong. You're good, I'm bad. You're smart, I'm dumb. You spell good, I spell bad, you make good posts, I write drek....


Now, you do agree with me, right, about conversion growth and not mere biological growth being our main strategy against the Muslim hordes, right? That is what set my off-kilter in the first place.


----------



## Claudiu

kvanlaan said:


> However, I have never met a Christian family with many children that did not see the raising of their children to be a hugely important issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is kind of  but, I have meet many many large families where the parents just have 12 kids but never bring them up properly. The parents never invested any time in at least teaching them basic things. The children then just grew up and left their parents house when they are old enough (but were in really bad shape). These are mainly the type of families I have encountered that have many children. There are exceptions where I have meet families that have many children but the parents did an excellent job in bringing them up. Then again, these large families I'm talking about are all Eastern Europeans who during the communist days were getting paid to have over 5 children (under Ceausescu's communist regime). At one point some Romanian families didn't even have to go to work because they were making enough money to stay at home.
> 
> (From wiki: The 1966 decree
> In 1966, the Ceauşescu regime banned all abortion, and introduced other policies to increase the very low birth rate and fertility rate - including a special tax amounting to between ten and twenty percent on the incomes of men and women who remained childless after the age of twenty-five, whether married or single. The inability to procreate due to medical reasons did not make a difference. Abortion was permitted only in cases where the woman in question was over forty-two, or already the mother of four (later five) children. *Mothers of at least five children would be entitled to significant benefits, while mothers of at least ten children were declared heroine mothers by the Romanian State*; few women ever sought this status, the average Romanian family during the communist era having two to three children (see Demographics of Romania).[4] Furthermore, a considerable number of women either died or were maimed during clandestine abortions.[5])
> 
> At the same time that this degree came out, conveniently, churches in Romania were really pushing for families having more children. The more children a family had, they were seen in the religious community as ones who God had favor upon, as more children meant more blessings. Yet at the same time these Christian families were just having more kids, a lot of them were losing them (spiritually).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that if a family is going to have many children they should make sure they can handle it. I've seen too many families just have kids but then move along in life as if they never had them. Again, these are my experiences with mostly Romanians.
> 
> My point is that because truly children are a blessing, we must treat like a blessing. Some families say their children are a blessing but then act as if it is more of a hassle. If families acknowledge that children are a blessing, then children will become a precious possession where they will be loved. I don't disagree that children are a blessing, but parents have to treat them like a blessing, as opposed to maybe a hassle in life (or possibly even a curse).
Click to expand...


----------



## Pergamum

cecat90 said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, I have never met a Christian family with many children that did not see the raising of their children to be a hugely important issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is kind of  but, I have meet many many large families where the parents just have 12 kids but never bring them up properly. The parents never invested any time in at least teaching them basic things. The children then just grew up and left their parents house when they are old enough (but were in really bad shape). These are mainly the type of families I have encountered that have many children. There are exceptions where I have meet families that have many children but the parents did an excellent job in bringing them up. Then again, these large families I'm talking about are all Eastern Europeans who during the communist days were getting paid to have over 5 children (under Ceausescu's communist regime). At one point some Romanian families didn't even have to go to work because they were making enough money to stay at home.
> 
> (From wiki: The 1966 decree
> In 1966, the Ceauşescu regime banned all abortion, and introduced other policies to increase the very low birth rate and fertility rate - including a special tax amounting to between ten and twenty percent on the incomes of men and women who remained childless after the age of twenty-five, whether married or single. The inability to procreate due to medical reasons did not make a difference. Abortion was permitted only in cases where the woman in question was over forty-two, or already the mother of four (later five) children. *Mothers of at least five children would be entitled to significant benefits, while mothers of at least ten children were declared heroine mothers by the Romanian State*; few women ever sought this status, the average Romanian family during the communist era having two to three children (see Demographics of Romania).[4] Furthermore, a considerable number of women either died or were maimed during clandestine abortions.[5])
> 
> At the same time that this degree came out, conveniently, churches in Romania were really pushing for families having more children. The more children a family had, they were seen in the religious community as ones who God had favor upon, as more children meant more blessings. Yet at the same time these Christian families were just having more kids, a lot of them were losing them (spiritually).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that if a family is going to have many children they should make sure they can handle it. I've seen too many families just have kids but then move along in life as if they never had them. Again, these are my experiences with mostly Romanians.
> 
> My point is that because truly children are a blessing, we must treat like a blessing. Some families say their children are a blessing but then act as if it is more of a hassle. If families acknowledge that children are a blessing, then children will become a precious possession where they will be loved. I don't disagree that children are a blessing, but parents have to treat them like a blessing, as opposed to maybe a hassle in life (or possibly even a curse).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heroine mothers....ha, I read that wrong and started thinking of Crack Babies and Drugs.?
Click to expand...


----------



## VilnaGaon

christianyouth said:


> cecat90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats an interesting way of looking at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, The Christian witness of the church is compromised when we create an environment where false converts thrive. Paul is so concerned with maintaining a pure community, that he argues for either barring church membership or for just general avoidance of believers who live inconsistent with the truth they profess, depending upon how you interpret the last verses in 1 Cor. 5, and in Ephesians says that sinful practices should not even be *mentioned* among believers.
> 
> What would be a faster way to get a pure assembly than to live under the dominion of a blood thirsty Caliphate?
Click to expand...

.

That would be a pure delusion to think that Islam would purify the Church!! Did that happen in North Africa in the 7th Century when Islam came conquering? 
Before Islam, North Africa was Christian. Almost all our Reformed Theology today, is of North African origin. Augustine, Athanasius, Cyprian,Tertullian, Cyril of Alexandria were North Africans.
What is North Africa today? 99% Muslim. The destruction of the Church in North Africa happened over a thousand year period. Outright massacres, persecution, forced conversions, punishing taxes exacted from Christians under the Laws of Dhimmitude wiped out Christianity in North Africa. This future is for the West if Islam ever takes over.
Anyone who doubts this should read any of the books on Dhimmitude by Bat Yeor. She has researched better than anyone I know on this seldom mentioned topic.

Amazon.com: The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam : From Jihad to Dhimmitude : Seventh-Twentieth Century: Bat Ye'or, Miriam Kochan, David Littman: Books


----------



## kvanlaan

> Now, you do agree with me, right, about conversion growth and not mere biological growth being our main strategy against the Muslim hordes, right? That is what set my off-kilter in the first place.



Agreed, agreed, agreed.



> This is kind of but, I have meet many many large families where the parents just have 12 kids but never bring them up properly. The parents never invested any time in at least teaching them basic things. The children then just grew up and left their parents house when they are old enough (but were in really bad shape). These are mainly the type of families I have encountered that have many children. There are exceptions where I have meet families that have many children but the parents did an excellent job in bringing them up. Then again, these large families I'm talking about are all Eastern Europeans who during the communist days were getting paid to have over 5 children (under Ceausescu's communist regime). At one point some Romanian families didn't even have to go to work because they were making enough money to stay at home.
> 
> (From wiki: The 1966 decree
> In 1966, the Ceauşescu regime banned all abortion, and introduced other policies to increase the very low birth rate and fertility rate - including a special tax amounting to between ten and twenty percent on the incomes of men and women who remained childless after the age of twenty-five, whether married or single. The inability to procreate due to medical reasons did not make a difference. Abortion was permitted only in cases where the woman in question was over forty-two, or already the mother of four (later five) children. Mothers of at least five children would be entitled to significant benefits, while mothers of at least ten children were declared heroine mothers by the Romanian State; few women ever sought this status, the average Romanian family during the communist era having two to three children (see Demographics of Romania).[4] Furthermore, a considerable number of women either died or were maimed during clandestine abortions.[5])
> 
> At the same time that this degree came out, conveniently, churches in Romania were really pushing for families having more children. The more children a family had, they were seen in the religious community as ones who God had favor upon, as more children meant more blessings. Yet at the same time these Christian families were just having more kids, a lot of them were losing them (spiritually).



OK, then that's bad. But it shows that when your motivation for doing this is not biblically-based things go bad. Christians who chase after things like this likewise need a talking to. Are we not to live our lives sola scriptura?



> My point is that because truly children are a blessing, we must treat like a blessing. Some families say their children are a blessing but then act as if it is more of a hassle. If families acknowledge that children are a blessing, then children will become a precious possession where they will be loved. I don't disagree that children are a blessing, but parents have to treat them like a blessing, as opposed to maybe a hassle in life (or possibly even a curse).



Agreed - I think this is a big part of the problem.


----------



## dr_parsley

My understanding is that the growth of Islam in Europe is due to immigration. If you took out immigration as a factor I don't think there would be statistically significant trends. The fact is that wealthy nations across the world have a dropping birth rate. This is due to a secular environmentalism that indicates children are a burden to the planet and due to people's love of money (being already wealthy). I think it's also because if you are poor, there is a biological drive to have more children so you can be supported by a large family. So there is a shift in population from poor countries to richer as well as a worsening imbalance in population level.

The fact that many of the richer nations are historically Christian means that that identification as Christian will ebb away as non-Christian immigration gains pace. The UK is already definitely not a Christian country any more. The USA is not immune to these social dynamics and it will happen there as well unless the counter-cultural people (Christians) make a concerted effort to have more children to prevent a crisis of population level like is being seen in Europe and Japan.

Just my 2c.


----------



## christianyouth

VilnaGaon said:


> christianyouth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cecat90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats an interesting way of looking at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, The Christian witness of the church is compromised when we create an environment where false converts thrive. Paul is so concerned with maintaining a pure community, that he argues for either barring church membership or for just general avoidance of believers who live inconsistent with the truth they profess, depending upon how you interpret the last verses in 1 Cor. 5, and in Ephesians says that sinful practices should not even be *mentioned* among believers.
> 
> What would be a faster way to get a pure assembly than to live under the dominion of a blood thirsty Caliphate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> That would be a pure delusion to think that Islam would purify the Church!! Did that happen in North Africa in the 7th Century when Islam came conquering?
> Before Islam, North Africa was Christian. Almost all our Reformed Theology today, is of North African origin. Augustine, Athanasius, Cyprian,Tertullian, Cyril of Alexandria were North Africans.
> What is North Africa today? 99% Muslim. The destruction of the Church in North Africa happened over a thousand year period. Outright massacres, persecution, forced conversions, punishing taxes exacted from Christians under the Laws of Dhimmitude wiped out Christianity in North Africa. This future is for the West if Islam ever takes over.
> Anyone who doubts this should read any of the books on Dhimmitude by Bat Yeor. She has researched better than anyone I know on this seldom mentioned topic.
> 
> Amazon.com: The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam : From Jihad to Dhimmitude : Seventh-Twentieth Century: Bat Ye'or, Miriam Kochan, David Littman: Books
Click to expand...


The observation that I made--that God uses persecution to purify His people, is just a very common theme throughout the scriptures and is demonstrated in history. I don't relish the idea of being persecuted, but if Christians were persecuted, we would be forced to actually start obeying scripture and once again become a separatist movement, which would fix a lot of the problems we are facing in the Church now.

God is sovereign and has calculated all potentialities, in eternity past, and decided on a course that would bring him greatest glory, so I'm not worried.


----------



## Hebrew Student

Dr. Parsley,

I think you have hit the nail on the head. If you have a religious group with a lot of backbone that moves freely into an area, then the liberals simply back down because they don't want to offend anyone except Christians.

However, still, birthrate is a problem, and it is amazing how self-centered the left is when it comes to children. When you combine the two, it is simply dynamite waiting to explode.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Southern Twang

Pergamum said:


> Anytime you tell a bunch of warlike tribes that they can take women as their booty, have mutliple wives and kill with God's sanction, that particular religion is going to grow through strenous efforts to conquer.
> 
> Is that the sort of dominion you want?
> 
> Making women possessions of men I guess is masculine, but is this the masculinity we want?
> 
> 
> Christianity, on the other hand, has empowered the weak and the NT gives much freedom to women.
> 
> Let's not apologize for the "weakness" of Christianity. Christians have always served, and died for their faith instead of dominating others.
> 
> Allah sends the sons of Muslims to kill for their faith, God has sent His Son to die for us, and we ought to send our sons to serve and even die for the good of others.



Pergamum,

You shouldn't have to go to the extremes to overcome an observation.

In no way is the dominion that Islam practices right. My point was at least they practice dominion, while the majority of Christians could care less about this Biblical concept.

The ideal masculinity I am thinking of is for the Christian men of the day to take a stand and start to lead. Our culture has infected us with egalitarian nonsense and Christian men of this day have abrogated a lot of their responsibility. Let the men take it back on and off the shoulders of our women.

Christians should serve others, and remain bold in our "weakness." We are weak in that we depend on Christ as our everything, but that doesn't mean that others may trample on us nor that we should let sin run rampant in our culture. We are to take a stand against the perversities of our day, but we see Christians cowering to abortion, homosexual marriage, idolatry and on and on on…

We need answers to why Christianity is losing in today's culture and why Islam is growing (if it is such an evil religion as you purport). Islam having a higher birth rate is just a piece of the puzzle.


----------



## Pergamum

Southern Twang said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anytime you tell a bunch of warlike tribes that they can take women as their booty, have mutliple wives and kill with God's sanction, that particular religion is going to grow through strenous efforts to conquer.
> 
> Is that the sort of dominion you want?
> 
> Making women possessions of men I guess is masculine, but is this the masculinity we want?
> 
> 
> Christianity, on the other hand, has empowered the weak and the NT gives much freedom to women.
> 
> Let's not apologize for the "weakness" of Christianity. Christians have always served, and died for their faith instead of dominating others.
> 
> Allah sends the sons of Muslims to kill for their faith, God has sent His Son to die for us, and we ought to send our sons to serve and even die for the good of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum,
> 
> You shouldn't have to go to the extremes to overcome an observation.
> 
> In no way is the dominion that Islam practices right. My point was at least they practice dominion, while the majority of Christians could care less about this Biblical concept.
> 
> The ideal masculinity I am thinking of is for the Christian men of the day to take a stand and start to lead. Our culture has infected us with egalitarian nonsense and Christian men of this day have abrogated a lot of their responsibility. Let the men take it back on and off the shoulders of our women.
> 
> Christians should serve others, and remain bold in our "weakness." We are weak in that we depend on Christ as our everything, but that doesn't mean that others may trample on us nor that we should let sin run rampant in our culture. We are to take a stand against the perversities of our day, but we see Christians cowering to abortion, homosexual marriage, idolatry and on and on on…
> 
> We need answers to why Christianity is losing in today's culture and why Islam is growing (if it is such an evil religion as you purport). Islam having a higher birth rate is just a piece of the puzzle.
Click to expand...


I think the way we take dominion is by the humble preaching of the Gospel. 

Militant missions slogans and warfare analogies will not work as we try to evangelize the Muslim world. 

We must go as servants and be ready to be persecuted. 

Reliance on gov'ts, or even our fertility, to overtake the Muslim world are wrong-headed.


----------



## KMK

Is the number of Islam yet "as the sand of the sea?"


----------



## Zenas

One problem:

American Christians bought the American Dream (read: Idol) hook, line, and sinker. For the American Christian, a white pickett fence, a dog, and 2.5 kids is the end all-be all of existence. Those who deviate from the dream are shunned, looked down on, or thought of as generally strange. People who have more than 2 children are regarded as _crazy_ by fellow Christians. 

Not so in the Islamic world, 3, 4, 9 children is normal and _celebrated_ as a blessing.

We've got some darn right theology don't we?


----------



## Pergamum

Joshua said:


> The gates of hell *will not* prevail over the Church. There's no doubt about it. If _anything_ would result in the "Christianization" of the world it will be the preaching of the Gospel. I want to make clear, lest it be misunderstood, that my comment earlier was not to say that Christians having more children should be relied upon to "overtake the Muslim world." I never even implied such a thing. I simply said it's a shame that Christians, of all people, think of childbearing and large families as a hard thing, instead of a blessing. Some trust in horses, some in chariots, but we should trust in the Name of the Lord our God.



We agree. 

I just wanted to keep first things first. 

It *IS*, indeed, a shame that we do not count children as a blessing -just like you said. 

We should have children to have children, not as a take-over strategy. 

We can stress both the priority of evangelism and also encourage a vigorous view of counting children as blessings. I am just weary of using kids for other reasons besides the sheer joy and blessing of them.


----------



## Montanablue

> I believe that if a family is going to have many children they should make sure they can handle it. I've seen too many families just have kids but then move along in life as if they never had them. Again, these are my experiences with mostly Romanians.
> 
> My point is that because truly children are a blessing, we must treat like a blessing. Some families say their children are a blessing but then act as if it is more of a hassle. If families acknowledge that children are a blessing, then children will become a precious possession where they will be loved. I don't disagree that children are a blessing, but parents have to treat them like a blessing, as opposed to maybe a hassle in life (or possibly even a curse).



My experience has been sadly similar. I grew up in a fundamentalist church where our family (4 children) was the smallest. Most of the children were neglected. There were about 3 families that provided adequate food, clothing, shelter, education, and spiritual training for their children. I'm not opposed to families having large numbers of children - children are a blessing as its been said. But we must make sure to treat them as a blessing. I'm not sure its much use of have dozens of children if we treat them like animals. 

Disclaimer: I am NOT saying that anyone on the PB treats their children in this manner. I would be shocked to find that so.


----------



## kvanlaan

> We agree.
> 
> I just wanted to keep first things first.
> 
> It IS, indeed, a shame that we do not count children as a blessing -just like you said.
> 
> *We should have children to have children, not as a take-over strategy. *
> 
> We can stress both the priority of evangelism and also encourage a vigorous view of counting children as blessings. I am just weary of using kids for other reasons besides the sheer joy and blessing of them.



But who actually does this in our community? Dispensationalists do it, sure. Some fundies too (are dispensationalists always fundamentalists? Not sure...) Puritans would never. They didn't have the warped theology for it. And yet they had many children (though many died in childbirth, they took what the Lord would give). And it is not because they were farmers. It's not because they needed extra hands in the family business. It is because they let the Lord's hand direct their way on every level. Something to shoot for, most certainly.

-----Added 7/14/2009 at 11:00:21 EST-----



> But we must make sure to treat them as a blessing. I'm not sure its much use of have dozens of children if we treat them like animals.



Then let the elders deal with this and focus on this sinful behaviour - but it has nothing to do with the act of having a large family. It has to do with neglect of duty and selfishness, not the number of children one has.

-----Added 7/14/2009 at 11:04:35 EST-----

I'm not sure if anyone has noticed this, but I _hate_ this attitude of "well, they had a dozen children, and look at them now." The legion families of two point one children whose offspring end up as crackheads is not mentioned. Why? Because they were _responsible_ in their childbearing and only had as many "as they could handle." 

Well, last I checked, that was the province of God, not of Man.

My wife never asks for help and will rarely accept it when it is pushed on her. Why? Because the frazzled woman with two children is to be pitied, but the woman with ten "was asking for it."



-----Added 7/14/2009 at 11:06:48 EST-----

Sometimes I feel like Noah.


----------



## Jennie

This is an interesting discussion. I have no information to add regarding the numbers, but I'm currently reading a book called America Alone which has as its central thesis that European countries will become Muslim because the nonMuslim birthrate has dropped so drastically. The author (whose name I can't remember right now) seems to think that Hispanic immigrants are the main force keeping American Christianity afloat. If anyone else has read this book, I'd love to hear your reactions to it.


----------



## Claudiu

kvanlaan said:


> We agree.
> 
> I just wanted to keep first things first.
> 
> It IS, indeed, a shame that we do not count children as a blessing -just like you said.
> 
> *We should have children to have children, not as a take-over strategy. *
> 
> We can stress both the priority of evangelism and also encourage a vigorous view of counting children as blessings. I am just weary of using kids for other reasons besides the sheer joy and blessing of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But who actually does this in our community? Dispensationalists do it, sure. Some fundies too (are dispensationalists always fundamentalists? Not sure...) Puritans would never. They didn't have the warped theology for it. And yet they had many children (though many died in childbirth, they took what the Lord would give). And it is not because they were farmers. It's not because they needed extra hands in the family business. It is because they let the Lord's hand direct their way on every level. Something to shoot for, most certainly.
> 
> -----Added 7/14/2009 at 11:00:21 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we must make sure to treat them as a blessing. I'm not sure its much use of have dozens of children if we treat them like animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then let the elders deal with this and focus on this sinful behaviour - but it has nothing to do with the act of having a large family. It has to do with neglect of duty and selfishness, not the number of children one has.
> 
> -----Added 7/14/2009 at 11:04:35 EST-----
> 
> I'm not sure if anyone has noticed this, but I _hate_ this attitude of "well, they had a dozen children, and look at them now." The legion families of two point one children whose offspring end up as crackheads is not mentioned. Why? Because they were _responsible_ in their childbearing and only had as many "as they could handle."
> 
> Well, last I checked, that was the province of God, not of Man.
> 
> My wife never asks for help and will rarely accept it when it is pushed on her. Why? Because the frazzled woman with two children is to be pitied, but the woman with ten "was asking for it."
> 
> 
> 
> -----Added 7/14/2009 at 11:06:48 EST-----
> 
> Sometimes I feel like Noah.
Click to expand...



I agree that even families who only have one or two kids can and do, sadly, neglect their children. The thing is, a family must follow what God wants for them. Maybe the family can only handle six kids, as opposed to ten. I think a family should strive to follow the will of God. This could go the other way too. If the family has the ability and calling to have more kids, then again, they should follow the will of God. I think too many people take the matter too lightly and don't seek what the will of God is before even starting a family.

-----Added 7/15/2009 at 12:59:47 EST-----

"Sometimes I feel like Noah."


Don't be discouraged!


----------



## Pergamum

kvanlaan said:


> We agree.
> 
> I just wanted to keep first things first.
> 
> It IS, indeed, a shame that we do not count children as a blessing -just like you said.
> 
> *We should have children to have children, not as a take-over strategy. *
> 
> We can stress both the priority of evangelism and also encourage a vigorous view of counting children as blessings. I am just weary of using kids for other reasons besides the sheer joy and blessing of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But who actually does this in our community? Dispensationalists do it, sure. Some fundies too (are dispensationalists always fundamentalists? Not sure...) Puritans would never. They didn't have the warped theology for it. And yet they had many children (though many died in childbirth, they took what the Lord would give). And it is not because they were farmers. It's not because they needed extra hands in the family business. It is because they let the Lord's hand direct their way on every level. Something to shoot for, most certainly.
> 
> -----Added 7/14/2009 at 11:00:21 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we must make sure to treat them as a blessing. I'm not sure its much use of have dozens of children if we treat them like animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then let the elders deal with this and focus on this sinful behaviour - but it has nothing to do with the act of having a large family. It has to do with neglect of duty and selfishness, not the number of children one has.
> 
> -----Added 7/14/2009 at 11:04:35 EST-----
> 
> I'm not sure if anyone has noticed this, but I _hate_ this attitude of "well, they had a dozen children, and look at them now." The legion families of two point one children whose offspring end up as crackheads is not mentioned. Why? Because they were _responsible_ in their childbearing and only had as many "as they could handle."
> 
> Well, last I checked, that was the province of God, not of Man.
> 
> My wife never asks for help and will rarely accept it when it is pushed on her. Why? Because the frazzled woman with two children is to be pitied, but the woman with ten "was asking for it."
> 
> 
> 
> -----Added 7/14/2009 at 11:06:48 EST-----
> 
> Sometimes I feel like Noah.
Click to expand...


Mr. Noah.

Don't bang your head clear through the wall yet. I think you've got a pretty swell-looking family you Super-Breeder you!


----------



## kvanlaan

> *The thing is, a family must follow what God wants for them.* Maybe the family can only handle six kids, as opposed to ten. I think a family should strive to follow the will of God.



And that's all I'm arguing for. A couple can attempt to 'breed' all they want, but the Lord will give as many offspring as He deigns, as many as *He* thinks they can handle. To me, that's the crux of the matter.

I totally agree that it is a calling to have a large family, and not for everyone. Remember, we have only 4 bio-kids, the other six are adopted. We breast-feed until the children are about 2 (that's the royal 'we', as I myself have never actually lactated), which means for the most part that as much as you try, you're just not going to get a child every year. 



> "Sometimes I feel like Noah."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be discouraged!
Click to expand...


I don't get discouraged, but I do get mighty evangelical about it. And I don't think I'm getting a special revelation from God or any such thing, as was Noah's case. I just don't understand the opposing mindset, because to me, scripture is just so crystal clear.


----------



## LawrenceU

Just try being the husband and wife who have a heart for 12 or 13 children and, by God's providence, have only had one. Adoptions have never worked out. It is very strange that for years we have desired this. I don't know how to describe the feeling and thoughts of, 'Where are the rest of our children?'


----------



## kvanlaan

Brother, I hear you, my heart goes out to you, and I cannot understand it myself. But be patient and wait on the Lord - Abraham had to wait as well (we waited nine years for each of our two adopted children from China). There may yet be little Underwoods added to you. I will be praying.


----------



## LawrenceU

I just hope I don't have to wait until I reach the age of Abraham at Issac's birth to find the rest of our children! But, if that were to be the case you'd see an old man doing flips.


----------



## TimV

It's too early to get too philosophical, even if I had the training. But In my humble opinion there's a bit of "either/or" going on here. One can have the desire to populate the earth with our type of folks and can really, really want lots of kids for the sake of having kids and there's no reasons that those different motives have to be, well, different motives.

We've had these types of discussions before, and for the life of me I still can't see how, under normal circumstances (not wife being sick or something like that) anyone would want to prevent something that is as clear as day portrayed as a blessing from the Lord.

I mean really, what is a blessing anyway? A fuzzy feeling, or something tangible?

Or maybe we should just sit down and whine about Muslims, those great warriors who would lose a war to Portugal, and are technologically behind Brazil. Might as well throw in the towel; after all what chance have we got? 

The days of faith and Kingdom building are over. Sure, it was fine standing on the walls of Leiden with a pitchfork, leading your Swedes against Tilly, or standing with Lazar at Kosovo even though you knew you would die.

It's different this time. This time Muslims can make their own air conditioners. What chance do we have? Especially as in 10 years those 3 percent of Europe's biggest economy who are Muslims are going to take over Germany, and in 12 years French history will come to an end. The glories of Spain are a thing of the past, what with all those temporary agricultural laborers from Tunis, and the stalwart Dutch will collapse like a rotten oak tree since one of the suburbs of Amsterdam just build another Mosque.

I just love these threads, and am so thankful for the Jewish neocons and apocalyptic Christian Fundamentalists who inspire them.


----------



## Claudiu

TimV said:


> It's too early to get too philosophical, even if I had the training. But In my humble opinion there's a bit of "either/or" going on here. One can have the desire to populate the earth with our type of folks and can really, really want lots of kids for the sake of having kids and there's no reasons that those different motives have to be, well, different motives.
> 
> We've had these types of discussions before, and for the life of me I still can't see how, under normal circumstances (not wife being sick or something like that) anyone would want to prevent something that is as clear as day portrayed as a blessing from the Lord.
> 
> I mean really, what is a blessing anyway? A fuzzy feeling, or something tangible?
> 
> Or maybe we should just sit down and whine about Muslims, those great warriors who would lose a war to Portugal, and are technologically behind Brazil. Might as well throw in the towel; after all what chance have we got?
> 
> The days of faith and Kingdom building are over. Sure, it was fine standing on the walls of Leiden with a pitchfork, leading your Swedes against Tilly, or standing with Lazar at Kosovo even though you knew you would die.
> 
> It's different this time. This time Muslims can make their own air conditioners. What chance do we have? Especially as in 10 years those 3 percent of Europe's biggest economy who are Muslims are going to take over Germany, and in 12 years French history will come to an end. The glories of Spain are a thing of the past, what with all those temporary agricultural laborers from Tunis, and the stalwart Dutch will collapse like a rotten oak tree since one of the suburbs of Amsterdam just build another Mosque.
> 
> I just love these threads, and am so thankful for the Jewish neocons and apocalyptic Christian Fundamentalists who inspire them.


----------

