# The command to "be fruitful and multiply" in today's culture



## Mayflower

The command to "be fruitful and multiply" in today's culture

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5koD4OGkvM]YouTube - The command to "be fruitful and multiply" in today's culture[/ame]


----------



## JBaldwin

She's right!


----------



## he beholds

While I personally hope to be fruitful and multiply, do we _know_ that that was commanded to _us_? I think it is the best practice for Christians, as I think that the alternatives produce questionable practices, and I do think it is probably true. 
But can a pastor speak on whether this was a command for all? 
I don't know how to determine what was a command for an individual or all people. 

I like Above Rubies (what I know of them) and thank you for the video!


----------



## Southern Twang

She is presuming continuity unless rescinded by the new testament. 

Wonder if she is consistent with this position?

Any whom, I believe we should go forth and multiply to the best of our ability. That is, if God grants it, we should do it.


----------



## Honor

wow... I wonder if she realizes that all though all children bear the image and likeness of God that just the fact that just beacause you are born into a christian household does not automatically make you a christian. I mean when God calls you are you not compelled to answer? Weither you are from a christian, non christian muslim or any other family. It seems to me that she's saying that if christians don't have lots and lots of babies then God's image won't fill the earth.... that just isn't true. And when she said that there are i don't know what she said something like hundreds of thousands of babies that would be here if christians wouldn't have followed Satan's agenda.... that seems to me that that is giving BC pills, abortions and whatever more power than God.... I happen to think that every child that God intended to be here IS here. God didn;t say "oh darn Suzie and Bill were supposed to have little Johnny but Suzie's on the Pill, shoot I guess not" Heck no.
Sorry. maybe it's this UTI that I have that's making me crabby.


----------



## Kevin

DID SHE JUST SAY... that the "Godly have stoped the godly seed from entering the world"????

That sounds very much like a "pre-existence" view of the soul. Is she a Mormon?


----------



## AThornquist

I'll listen to a different teacher on children's issues.


----------



## Mayflower

Book Be Fruitful and Multiply by Vision Forum 

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Be-Fruitful-Multiply-Nancy-Campbell/dp/0972417354]Amazon.com: Be Fruitful and Multiply (9780972417358): Nancy Campbell: Books[/ame]

Excerpts from the Foreword to ‘Be Fruitful and Multiply’

Excerpts from the Foreword to the Book by Nancy Campbell
by Douglas W. Phillips, Esq., January 27, 2003

“Be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate...”

Can you imagine attending a wedding where families and friends offered the above blessing to a new bride? Yet these words of encouragement, once offered to Rebekah on the advent of her marriage to Isaac (Genesis 18:24), beautifully communicate the heart of God’s command to Christian husbands and wives that they be exceedingly fruitful and raise children who will influence all of culture and society for the glory of God.

There is no escaping the fact that the Bible is dogmatically pro-child. Scripture declares unapologetically that the birth of many children is a source of blessing, that a key reason for marriage is to bring forth many children for the glory of God, and that parents should actively seek such blessings. The Bible begins with a mandate for conception. The first great commission given to man was to “be fruitful and multiply.” This commission to bring forth many children for the glory of God and through them to subdue the earth was first given to Adam and Eve and their progeny, and was later renewed to Noah in the days following the Great Flood, and remains our standard for today — a fact that is clear from the affirmation by the Lord Jesus of the Genesis marriage mandate upon which the fruitfulness and dominion commission rests (Matthew 19:4-6).

But there is more: The Bible abounds with examples of people of diverse economic backgrounds who were considered blessed to have many children. There appears to be no relationship whatsoever between the economic status of a family and the mandate to bring forth children. Rich and poor alike are to have many children for the glory of God and to recognize that the same God who gives life is also able to provide for the life He brings into the world. In fact, in the biblical model, large numbers of children not only increase the spiritual blessing of the family, but potentially increase the financial strength of the family as well, as parents and children join in unison to contribute to the economy of the household.

In contrast with our modern society which promotes barrenness, population control, and abortion, the Bible consistently associates the inability to conceive with sorrow, a decrease in a nation’s population with judgment, and the careless and harmful treatment of babies with paganism and witchcraft. The Bible is not silent on the issue of conception control. At least four patterns and precepts are relevant: First, under the Mosaic law, complete abstinence was the natural consequence of the ceremonial uncleanness during the season of a woman’s menstruation. Second, the apostle Paul instructed husbands and wives that they may choose to exercise complete abstinence for a season of self-examination. Third, Scripture offers the controversial but relevant passage in which we learn that Onan, now married to his brother’s widow, is struck dead by the Lord for practicing a form of conception control, with the goal of preventing children who will bear his brother’s name.

Finally, in the Bible, there is no separation of life from love. Sometimes it is the sovereign will of God for Him to permanently close the womb of a woman, and when He does this, we must accept in faith His will. (Ultimately, the Lord does this for all women through the aging process.) But the Scripture offers no refuge to the idea that man may deliberately separate the “life” component from the “love” component of the holy union between man and woman.

It is fair to say that for six thousand years of earth history, the unanimous sentiment of Hebrew and Christian culture was opposition to birth control, support for conception within marriage, and recognition of the blessing of children. Of course, forms of birth control have been with man since the ancients, but it has only been in the twentieth century, with the influence of evolutionism and eugenics, that Christians have publicly embraced the notion of child prevention. The point is this: The Bible is enthusiastically pro-childbirth, and what it does say of relevance to the issue of conception control is comprehensively negative. There are no clear patterns, precepts, or principles found in the Bible which seem to give any leeway to the idea that couples should alter their bodies and cut off their seed. Until recently, this was the universally accepted principle of Christian culture. This is why Christians who advocate conception control have a whopping task: The burden of proof rests on them (not those of us who argue for the normative and plain teaching of Scripture) to prove from Scripture alone that God is pleased with us altering our bodies and thwarting children from coming into the world. It is not enough to argue from the “penumbras and emanations” of the Scripture, or to hope that there is a stewardship principle which would support the practice of cutting off the seed. One must actively prove from clear patterns, precepts, and principles of Scripture that child prevention is part of the jurisdiction over which man may lawfully exercise stewardship. This is an important point because all sorts of wrongs can be argued on the basis of “stewardship.” The relevant question is this: “do we have the jurisdiction and authority to thwart children?”

The great tragedy of our day is that the Church has been swept up in the birth control ethic, with its selfish quest for convenience, comfort, and the self-deceiving vision of the individual’s control over his own destiny. The fact is that we have lost our love for children and our vision to be fruitful, multiply, and have dominion over the earth. The results have been devastating.

In fact, many Christians are unaware that they are not only engaging in an unbiblical practice of preventing “blessings,” but that some of the very practices they embrace have abortifacient consequences. How sad to think that someday we will get to Heaven and learn of the untold millions of children that were inadvertently aborted by their Christian parents — all because of lack of faith and ignorance. “My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge.” I have a simple thesis: Hollywood is not the primary problem in the battle for our families. Neither do Wall Street, nor Madison Avenue, have any more power over our households than that which we grant to them. The problem is not the media. The problem is not Planned Parenthood. The problem is not the “liberal elite.” The problem is us.

We are the problem. And judgment must begin with us. As long as we continue to abort our babies, or cut off our seed, or abandon our children to the world, we can never expect blessing and joy within our households, let alone our culture. As long as we view children as a burden, we will not experience the victory of multi-generational faithfulness. Judgment begins first in the House of God. That means us. We must actively seek to bring forth legions of children for the glory of God. We must be willing to bless future mothers with the very words given to Rebekah: “May you be the mother of thousands of millions, and may your seed possess the gate.”

It is for the perpetuation of this glorious vision that Vision Forum Ministries is pleased to publish this important study guide by Nancy Campbell. For many decades, Mrs. Campbell has served her husband at home and through her Titus 2 ministry to Christian women promoting virtuous womanhood. She and her husband bring to this discussion a wealth of rich insight from God’s Word which we hope will inspire you to search the Scripture diligently on the issue of trusting our sovereign God for the birth of children. It is my prayer that in years to come, we will have the privilege of meeting many hundreds, if not thousands of children, who would not have been born, but for the wonderful new vision for fruitfulness inspired by this thought-provoking study guide.

Excerpts from the Foreword to ‘Be Fruitful and Multiply’ - Vision Forum Ministries


----------



## kvanlaan

She's not a Mormon; we get Above Rubies and she has lately been raving about how wonderful their new 1599 Geneva bible is. I don't agree with everything they put in there (there's some 'floopy' Christian stuff in some issues) but a lot of it is really quite good.


----------



## Pergamum

Floopy?

Is that like squirrely?

Possibly an alternate variant of loopy?


----------



## kvanlaan

It's kindofa BR and not a TR magazine. There are headscratching moments in reading their magazine. But for the most part it's solid, though heavy on the QF, and if you're not into that, it would be tough to take.


----------



## Kevin

She sounded (in the clip) like she believes in a pre-existence of the soul. I have heard similar nonsense from some QF types in the past. Does anyone know the source of this teaching within the QF movement?


----------



## kvanlaan

I think it's more 'cultural' lingo than anything. I don't know of any QF-ers who theologically believe in a technical pre-existing soul (as a Mormon would), save for the idea that man is once again trying to declare his own sovereignty, and the joy that could be is therefore not.

-----Added 7/26/2009 at 10:46:49 EST-----

Just a side note - I was listening to it off-screen (the chairs looked too TBN-ish for me) and she sounded very much like Kate Blanchett in the Lord of the Rings movies. Sorry for the interruption...


----------



## Kevin

Kevin, I don't know if I would let them off as easy as you did by calling it "cultural". I have heard & read several of the QF movement say that (prophylactic) BC "Prevents" children from being born.

Since prior to conception no child actualy exists, this sounds very much like a (heretical) "spirit baby" doctrine. in my opinion.


----------



## kvanlaan

I don't know that I agree on that. Remember, the context with QF folks is not always reformed (or _as reformed_ theologically as it should be). Thus God's sovereignty is not always in the place that it should be, hence the idea that 'we' may have something to do with the birth of children. Then yes, BC would stop babies from being born instead of a more reformed QF opinion of BC simply being rebellion against God.

But I don't know of anyone who would say that they were bringing 'spirit babies' over from the other side besides a Mormon.


----------



## Kevin

Kevin I agree that most QF people are not reformed! And I further agree that most would not articulate a "spirit baby" doctrine...

However, what you hear as poorly formed rhetoric I would consider a major concession to heresy.

Christianity is NOT a fertility cult. Baalism was a fertility cult. And the people of God fell for it once. Dr Kyrkandal said in class once that if Baalism was packaged as modern evangelicalism we would fill the pews!

Loose rhetoric like that used in the clip makes me realise that us conservatives would join in with the crowd.


----------



## VictorBravo

For the benighted among us, could someone say what "QF" stands for?

I'm pretty sure it means quiver full, but first I had to eliminate "quality foods", "quick Ferraris", and "Quixotic Fundamentalists."


----------



## Kevin

victorbravo said:


> For the benighted among us, could someone say what "QF" stands for?
> 
> I'm pretty sure it means quiver full, but first I had to eliminate "quality foods", "quick Ferraris", and "Quixotic Fundamentalists."



QF= quiver full. A movement among evangelical christians that teaches that any form of Birth Controll/Family Planning including prophylactic methods "prevent" the birth of (spirit babies??) children that God otherwise intended to give you.

I have many problems with this movement. Not the least of which is the teaching that God is Not sovereign, that man may subvert the will of God, that Christianity is reduced to a fertility cult, the (implicet) idea that souls have a pre-existence (or else how can they be "prevented"?).


----------



## kvanlaan

And I would instead characterize it (judging by those in reformed circles that I know) as merely shunning birth control.

Unfortunately, it is the Dispensational/arminian/floopy ones that shout the loudest.


----------



## JBaldwin

Kevin said:


> She sounded (in the clip) like she believes in a pre-existence of the soul. I have heard similar nonsense from some QF types in the past. Does anyone know the source of this teaching within the QF movement?



I thought she might be part of the pentecostal movement when I heard her. 

Just to clarify since I made the comment, "She's right." I was referring to her main point which is we should not swallow the garbage that is being fed to us from the world right now regarding having children, not all the gory details.


----------



## he beholds

Kevin said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the benighted among us, could someone say what "QF" stands for?
> 
> I'm pretty sure it means quiver full, but first I had to eliminate "quality foods", "quick Ferraris", and "Quixotic Fundamentalists."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QF= quiver full. A movement among evangelical christians that teaches that any form of Birth Controll/Family Planning including prophylactic methods "prevent" the birth of (spirit babies??) children that God otherwise intended to give you.
> 
> I have many problems with this movement. Not the least of which is the teaching that God is Not sovereign, that man may subvert the will of God, that Christianity is reduced to a fertility cult, the (implicet) idea that souls have a pre-existence (or else how can they be "prevented"?).
Click to expand...



I've never met a QF person who thought that BC prevents babies that God wanted to give. I think we are leaning toward QF and we KNOW that God will or won't give children as he sees fit, regardless of our own choices. However, I do also realize that in God's sovereignty, he can have us prevent babies (that never would have been) from being conceived by the scientific use of medicine. We can also sin, in his sovereignty, by us unknowingly aborting babies with chemical BC, thus killing babies that have been, albeit for a very brief moment in time. 
What I mean to say is just as in God's sovereignty Tylenol works to take away headaches, any type of BC can work to prevent an egg from connecting with a sperm. Chemical BC can also work to abort a baby that has been conceived. 
I don't think anything I have said is heretical or downplays God's sovereignty.


----------



## R Harris

Southern Twang said:


> She is presuming continuity unless rescinded by the new testament.
> 
> Wonder if she is consistent with this position?
> 
> Any whom, I believe we should go forth and multiply to the best of our ability. That is, if God grants it, we should do it.



This is exactly right. God is sovereign over the womb, HE is the one who extends the blessing. We cannot "force" it to happen.

I grow tired of the "large families" proponents who, if you do not have at least 6 children of your own, will look at you as if you are apostate. These people completely miss the boat.

I have 3 children, but my wife has had 4 miscarriages. Would that still be deemed acceptable to these people?


----------



## JoyFullMom

I agree Randy, and I grow tired of people who see my 6 dc and that we homeschool and therefore *plug us in* to a *movement*. 

I think it is dangerous to be on ground where one would be tempted to assume *anything* about a couple by what is outwardly observed. I know too many who desire to fill their home with children....but God has not moved.....yet  

And conversely, I know some who have many and they are not little blessings at all, but curses, because the parents have neglected to TRAIN them to be obedient. 

Forgive me for hopping down the bunny trail here..... LOL!


----------



## kvanlaan

> I have 3 children, but my wife has had 4 miscarriages. Would that still be deemed acceptable to these people?



My sympathies, brother. And yes, it would be acceptable. It is _never_ about the number of children, it is _only_ about the attitude towards children. I know a QF couple that has zero children. Been married probably 20 years. The Lord has seen fit not to connect sperm with egg (or whatever the issue may be). Such is His will.


----------



## R Harris

kvanlaan said:


> I have 3 children, but my wife has had 4 miscarriages. Would that still be deemed acceptable to these people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My sympathies, brother. And yes, it would be acceptable. It is _never_ about the number of children, it is _only_ about the attitude towards children. I know a QF couple that has zero children. Been married probably 20 years. The Lord has seen fit not to connect sperm with egg (or whatever the issue may be). Such is His will.
Click to expand...


Thank you, great post.


----------



## Montanablue

R Harris said:


> Southern Twang said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is presuming continuity unless rescinded by the new testament.
> 
> Wonder if she is consistent with this position?
> 
> Any whom, I believe we should go forth and multiply to the best of our ability. That is, if God grants it, we should do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly right. God is sovereign over the womb, HE is the one who extends the blessing. We cannot "force" it to happen.
> 
> I grow tired of the "large families" proponents who, if you do not have at least 6 children of your own, will look at you as if you are apostate. These people completely miss the boat.
> 
> I have 3 children, but my wife has had 4 miscarriages. Would that still be deemed acceptable to these people?
Click to expand...


This is one of those situations where I think that people should learn to mind their own business and avoid making snap judgments about others. My parents aren't qf, but wanted a large family. They had two children, and then although they tried for more had none, so they decided to adopt a third child. Seven years later, they had a 4th and that appears to be the number God is giving them. 

My poor mother had to deal with people telling her that she was "going against the will of God" because she only had 2 children for a long while. After we had four kids, other people told her that she was "overpopulating" the earth because she had 4 kids. (of course, they had no idea that one was adopted). At the same time, several people in our church told her that she should either be having more children biologically or if that wasn't happening, she needed to adopt more. The number of children you have is between you, your spouse, and God. It is absolutely no one else's business and no one should be commenting unless they've been asked to do so. 

I'll get off my soapbox now.


----------



## he beholds

I think the idea behind QF is being open to life. The number of children has nothing to do with us. I also agree that judgment should not occur based on number of children. I think close friends may know the full situation, like whether you want 2.2 kids or as many as God wills, but how would you ever know the desires of a stranger????????


----------



## kvanlaan

It's the statements like "and we just said - hey, two is enough, and I got my tubes tied" that stand my hair on end. He will give as many children as he sees fit, it is simply not within our purview to decide how many that will be.


----------



## AThornquist

kvanlaan said:


> It's the statements like "and we just said - hey, two is enough, and I got my tubes tied" that stand my hair on end. He will give as many children as he sees fit, it is simply not within our purview to decide how many that will be.



I know what you mean! At work, when I have to ask ladies if they are pregnant and they emphatically shake their head and say, "NO WAY! I got my tubes tied, thank (you know Who)," I feel like saying something to the effect of, "Isn't it nice to not have any more stupid little trouble makers around to bother you while you try to live life completely for yourself?" Of course, I only say, "Okay," but still, the feelings are there.


----------



## Classical Presbyterian

To my mind, although editing out the passages of Scripture that we don't personally like is certainly a great sin, so too is giving shallow interpretations of His Word.

Any automatic, pre-fab answer to such a broad and universal commandment, such as as "be fruitful and multiply", is immensely unhelpful in our discernment of God's will for our families.


----------



## he beholds

I don't know if this will work, but I made a timeline that I've been trying to put online forever. Every time I've tried before, I lost the format of the chronology. But this is from a discussion on the history of procreation vs. reproduction. Here is the timeline. The page will bring you nothing, but an attachment. The attachment is the timeline. 
Let me know if it doesn't work.


----------



## CatherineL

I'm not really familiar with the Above Rubies lady, though I have read a few of her practical articles on child training and such and found her to be helpful.

I don't think this clip really represents most QF folks' theological underpinings. My understand is that the two main principles behind QF are 1) that scripture says children are a blessing and reward and 2) that God is the one who opens and closes the womb.

Its interesting to me to read on here people accusing QF people of not believing in the sovereignty of God. We are basically QF in that we are convicted by scripture saying that God opens and closes the womb, so we don't feel comfortable taking steps to close the womb at this point.*** 
Not because we think we can control His will. Its only because we believe in God's complete sovereignty that we're able to trust God that He won't give us babies we're not supposed to have. At least that's where we are on it at the moment. At the same time, I know that one could argue that if God wants you to have a baby, no birth control attempts on your part would stop it. Since we find chemical BC (the pill and likewise) morally unacceptable, and other forms of BC either icky, frustrating, or impediments to, er, fun  we feel comfortable trusting God with our fertility since the Word says His Will will be done regardless. Its certainly something that deserves prayer and consideration by married couples. 

***caveat - I wouldn't call us completely QF because we're not as completely convinced as many QF folks are - we would not persume to say that all family planning is sinful. But we do recognize that most of our personal reasons for avoiding pregnancy are not really Godly at all, and so unless we have a good reason, we choose to not interfere.


----------



## Tripel

CatherineL said:


> IWe are basically QF in that we are convicted by scripture saying that God opens and closes the womb, so we don't feel comfortable taking steps to close the womb at this point...we're able to trust God that He won't give us babies we're not supposed to have.



It's safe to say that we all believe in the sovereignty of God, whether you are QF or not. A family will never have more or fewer children than God intended.

With that said, I can respect those who say "God opens and closes the whom, so we're leaving it all up to him", but I also question that mindset. Can a QF family adopt? What if a couple goes into marriage planning to have as many children as God allows and then finds out that their womb is closed? 

Why would it be wrong for a couple to try to "close" their womb in the form of birth control, but right for a couple to try to "open" their womb in the form of adoption?


----------



## Scottish Lass

Tripel said:


> Why would it be wrong for a couple to try to "close" their womb in the form of birth control, but right for a couple to try to "open" their womb in the form of adoption?



I would venture to say that adoption has a positive biblical connection, while birth control does not.


----------



## Tripel

Scottish Lass said:


> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would it be wrong for a couple to try to "close" their womb in the form of birth control, but right for a couple to try to "open" their womb in the form of adoption?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would venture to say that adoption has a positive biblical connection, while birth control does not.
Click to expand...


I agree, but when it comes down to it, both are getting around God's opening and closing of the womb. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here, but I can see where the QF mindset might lead SOME to rely on God's sovereignty so long as it results in lots and lots of babies. I haven't heard of many QF people who are content with having a closed a womb. 

...for what it's worth, I think adoption is a great option for those with or without biological children, but I also think birth control can be a good thing.


----------



## DanMcCormack

Tripel said:


> ...for what it's worth, I think adoption is a great option for those with or without biological children, but I also think birth control can be a good thing.



Agreed.

We have three children -- each a blessing from God.

But Janet had successively more complications, and more children probably would have killed her.


----------



## satz

Scottish Lass said:


> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would it be wrong for a couple to try to "close" their womb in the form of birth control, but right for a couple to try to "open" their womb in the form of adoption?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would venture to say that adoption has a positive biblical connection, while birth control does not.
Click to expand...


To be fair, I think that 1 Cor7:26-32 does set out that there are times when God says it is acceptable for a man to forgo marriage – and hence children – because of distress in his life(v26), or to reduce excessive carefulness in his life (v32). And even if a man is married, should not be the be all and end all of his existence (v29). 

There may not explicit bible support for birth control, but its use in certain circumstances is in keeping with bible principles (saying so is not to deny that the way our world has gone is completely out of wack).


----------



## he beholds

Tripel said:


> Scottish Lass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tripel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would it be wrong for a couple to try to "close" their womb in the form of birth control, but right for a couple to try to "open" their womb in the form of adoption?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would venture to say that adoption has a positive biblical connection, while birth control does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, but when it comes down to it, both are getting around God's opening and closing of the womb. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here, but I can see where the QF mindset might lead SOME to rely on God's sovereignty so long as it results in lots and lots of babies. I haven't heard of many QF people who are content with having a closed a womb.
> 
> ...for what it's worth, I think adoption is a great option for those with or without biological children, but I also think birth control can be a good thing.
Click to expand...


Adopting is not forcing your womb open, as no baby enters or exits your womb in adoption. If we were talking about in vitro fertilization or something, then you might (and I think, do) have a point. QF is not, typically, about the number of babies you have, but your mindset.


----------



## sealdaSupralapsarian

Yo,

*Be fruitful and multiple is certainly a command for Christians today. We can thank Feminism and Autonomy for why this command is looked at as if it is ancient and not revelant for todays Christians. Hogwash 

Also, for some of the comments I've read about the people who advocate large families 6 or more, those people don't look down upon others who don't have as many. I mean if you've had multiple miscarriages those children belong to the LORD as well. If the LORD decree was for them not to enter this world then there's nothing you can do about it. Yet, don't feel ashamed and I'm sure any big family of 6 or more will understand your hardship.

So instead of being pessimistic towards big family advocates, try to understand that they may not understand your situation if you don't communicate it. 

Also, Christians having multiple children doesn't gaurantee those children will be inward Christians but it does gaurantee they will be raised up and brought up under the fear and admonition of the LORD their GOD for he is the God of the Saints and the Heathens let the church say Amen. 

Just my thoughts on the topic.*

Grace and Peace,
seal


----------



## JoyFullMom

Daniel, 

I agree with your point about some QF'ers not being content with a closed womb. I don't make other families' business my business, but I must confess that I have a difficult time with the *lack of contentment* with what God has given amongst some of my friends who claim QF. Sometimes, it seems no sooner has a baby been birthed before they are pining away for another. It reminds me of children holding out their hand for *more* candy as the piece they have in their mouth is drooling down their face. And, when God doesn't *bless* every two years or so, there is whining and pleading. 

I think that an important point gets missed.....it's about TRUSTING God, in all things, and being CONTENT. The focus always needs to be on the *Giver* rather than the gifts and how many or how few.

Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying it's wrong to ask God for a child, it is something that goes *beyond* that to which I speak. And...I know this does not apply to all who hold to QF beliefs.


----------

