Vyckie Garrison wasn't sure she wanted to use her real name in this article. Until last year, Garrison (then Vyckie Bennett), a 43-year-old single mother of seven living in Norfolk, Neb., followed a fundamentalist pronatalist theology known as Quiverfull. Shunning all forms of birth control, Quiverfull women accept as many children as God gives them as a demonstration of their radical faith and obedience as well as a means to advance his kingdom: winning the country for Christ by having more children than their adversaries. This self-proclaimed "patriarchy" movement, which likely numbers in the tens of thousands but which is growing exponentially, bases its arguments on Psalm 127: "Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They shall not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate." Quiverfull women commonly give birth to families of eight, 10 and 12 children, or more.

Comments

Search

holmegm   |2009-03-30 10:21:31 Quote: Shunning all forms of birth control Like, say, every major Christian church/denomination before 1922, was it?

Jim   |2009-03-30 21:49:09 They were also mostly shunning racial integration, you want to bring that back as well? Seriously, this isn't a real argument.

holmegm  - re:   |2009-03-31 11:32:25 Jim wrote: They were also mostly shunning racial integration, you want to bring that back as well? Seriously, this isn't a real argument. Actually, it's a pretty good counter-argument to the whole "look at those evange-freaks; they are so out there!" "argument". I can't help it if the original "argument" to be countered is so stupid ... That a Christian group "shunning birth control" would be considered weird and freaky is a recent cultural anomaly.

Jim   |2009-03-31 13:17:25 Quote: That a Christian group "shunning birth control" would be considered weird and freaky is a recent cultural anomaly. Again, so what? This is a non-argument. But to indulge here are some issues to take into account. First off, most forms of birth-control were invented only in the last century. Second, infant mortality have plummeted in the last century. Third, better medical practices have also greatly decreased the chances of death for mothers and children due to pregnancy and birth complications in the last century. Fourth, greater nutrition in the last century has meant that women are in fact more fertile (there's been a lot done on menses rates in subsistence agriculture environments; it's not uncommon for women to only have one or two periods a year; cf. barren matriarchs). All of these together (and there are more arguments that can be added) explain why Christian (and most) groups acted the way they did in days of yore.

emperorbma   |2009-03-31 14:11:06 Quote: All of these together (and there are more arguments that can be added) explain why Christian (and most) groups acted the way they did in days of yore. Wait a minute, you're saying that the Kama Sutra was written in the 20th century? I think the behaviors of the Indians (i.e. India...), the ancient Romans and the Greeks, at the very least, speak against the lack of contraception being a real concern for many couples of the day. As you said, most contraception is modern, but even in the ancient times there was more than enough contraception (and abortions, if those failed) to make sex outside of marriage a rather popular pastime for many. However, even in the days of Rome, the Christians were described as one of those rare groups that rejected abortion, infanticide, death by exposure and many of the common sexual practices that the people in the first two centuries after Christ were infamous for indulging in.

Jim   |2009-03-31 21:52:29 Actually, that brings up a good point. All three of your examples are cast/class specific. It was the upper crust who had the luxury not to worry about the imminent death of their wives and children. Conversely, most early converts to Christianity were from lower classes. Hmmm.... BTW it's hard to point to Christianity as a "rare group" in this regard since most of the history we have was written either by and for the upper class Roman society, or by later Christians. Neither of these groups were prone to tell us what the vast majority of people were up to.

emperorbma   |2009-04-01 00:44:48 Touché.

laika   |2009-03-31 15:53:26 Jim wrote: First off, most forms of birth-control were invented only in the last century. Second, infant mortality have plummeted in the last century. Third, better medical practices have also greatly decreased the chances of death for mothers and children due to pregnancy and birth complications in the last century. Fourth, greater nutrition in the last century has meant that women are in fact more fertile (there's been a lot done on menses rates in subsistence agriculture environments; it's not uncommon for women to only have one or two periods a year; cf. barren matriarchs). a very interesting collection of facts! Jim wrote: All of these together (and there are more arguments that can be added) explain why Christian (and most) groups acted the way they did in days of yore. yup. the fact that more and more we are not living the often short and brutal lives that were the norm for much of human history (especially pre-cultural) puts us in a very different circumstance than our ancestors.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2009-04-01 00:57:46 but all your arguments seem to be practical. Practicality and ethics don't always go hand in hand and I see no reason why increased prevalence of conditions favorable for performing action x make action x moral if it had not previously been. they also aren't arguments that they presented. You can make the fruitful and multiply arguments of ancient israel and their struggles to get more people to work the rather harsh land etc. etc. you might even make the claim that early christians were trying to take over by numbers, but the point of the matter is that the chief arguments against it have not been "we need more babies", they have been "this is contrary to the design and purpose of intercourse" or some other theological varient.

PinocchiosFurniture  - Birth Control Practiced By Christians Since Ancein   |2009-03-30 18:34:32 Birth control has been practiced by Christians since ancient times. Birth control can be in the form of self-imposed 'celibacy', 'natural family planning', the use of 'condoms' (until recently made of animal intestines), or even 'anal intercourse.' What is disturbing about the cultic views of "Quiverfull" is that the only way to justify their views is by distorting the Scripture. While God did say to "Man" "Be fruitful and Multiply", God did not intend for every human to pro-create, and even explained through Jesus that being a eunuch for the Gospel's sake was a gift of God. It was this false teaching even during Jesus day that having children was a sign of blessing from God, that Jesus corrected. The Apostle Paul taught is was better not to marry and not to have children so that one could devote himself to the propagation of the Gospel. As for herself, Garrison says, "I gave my life to Jesus, and he didn't do with it what I would have done.” She feels as though she's in free fall, her “feet planted firmly in midair,” as the evangelical luminary Francis Schaeffer once remarked of non-Christians. Sometimes it's exhilarating, but often she wonders when she'll hit the ground. The chaos and confusion that follow leaving the movement is a powerful deterrent to other women who face losing their children as Laura did, or becoming overwhelmed like Garrison. “The only thing that keeps these mothers going is they have incredible motivation,” says Garrison. “They believe they're building the kingdom of God." Though her children are thriving in public school, Garrison struggles to find the energy to mother seven children without the incentive, and threat, that the Quiverfull conviction provides: a promise that obedient Christian wives may, through their meekness, their submission and their posterity, inherit the earth. The above quote serves to indicate where false teaching leads: it leads to a LACK of faith. To have or have not children is a personal choice left to us by God. One is no more spiritual or obedient to have children than spiritual or obedient to not have children. Nothing wrong or immoral about birth control(natural or otherwise) despite what many false teachers claim.

Entity  - re: Birth Control Practiced By Christians Since An   |2009-03-31 09:30:54 PinocchiosFurniture wrote: Birth control has been practiced by Christians since ancient times. ... Nothing wrong or immoral about birth control(natural or otherwise) despite what many false teachers claim. False teachers like the popes, ecumenical councils, and church fathers? Yes, birth control has been practiced by Christians since Christianity began. (I don't know that I would call that 'ancient times'.) However, so have many other sins. A history of wrongdoing does not make it acceptable. Clement of Alexandria "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 [A.D. 191]). "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (ibid., 2:10:95:3). Hippolytus "[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12 [A.D. 225]). Lactantius "[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (Divine Institutes 6:20 [A.D. 307]). Epiphanius of Salamis "They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" (Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 [A.D. 375]). Augustine "You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your law [against childbearing] . . . they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tim. 4:1–4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps" (Against Faustus 15:7 [A.D. 400]). John Chrysostom "[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father’s old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live" (Homilies on Matthew 28:5 [A.D. 391]). Caesarius of Arles "Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman" (Sermons 1:12 [A.D. 522]).

emperorbma   |2009-03-31 11:40:29 Couldn't have put it better myself...

laika   |2009-03-31 12:40:12 ah, yes, dear old Fathers, God forbid that such a lowly, nasty creature as woman should actually enjoy the physical expression of love with her spouse! the implications are totally unacceptable! sheesh! whole lotta castration anxiety in yesteryore.

Jim   |2009-03-31 13:18:10 LOL

emperorbma   |2009-03-31 13:48:37 I thought we were criticizing abortion, not contraception...

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2009-03-31 23:30:14 I know you're being tongue-in-cheek and such, but pleasure in marital coitus is something that quite a few of them spoke very positively about. Saying procreation must not be excluded doesn't say pleasure is or ought to be excluded. and for that matter, though I had agreed with your take for a time...I really don't think the generalized impression that the fathers were mysoginists and women-haters is really well supported by their writings (certainly some darker or less pleasant bits, but overall not)

emperorbma   |2009-04-01 01:08:11 Consider also the fact that the cultures under which they wrote were even more misogynistic. Thomas Aquinas, for example, didn't get his misogynistic opinions of women from the Bible but from Aristotle, and he had to temper some of his more misogynistic arguments because of what Scripture says contrary to Aristotle.

laika   |2009-03-31 23:49:22 man, i've been thinking that you were making a lot of good points this week, and then you turn them on me :-) however, there's plenty of misogyny to be found.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2009-04-01 00:03:45 oh, I'm not denying that it's there, and i've seen plenty of cherry picked examples taht certainly make it feel pervasive, but the more I've been reading whole texts rather than just excerpts the more I'm coming to think that it's not really a fair descriptor overall. It seems more like part of the cultural static that unfortunately makes its way in. (though I think which authors you read most probably makes a big difference. I spend most of my time with Gregory of Nyssa and he's really a shining example of a church father rather averse to misogyny. Chrysostom seems like he wrote enough that bits of both shine through.)

laika   |2009-04-01 00:35:01 WebbedFeetOfClay wrote: Chrysostom seems like he wrote enough that bits of both shine through. yeah, odd case, Chrysostom. perfectly untroubled to acknowledge that there were women apostles, yet had some really unsavory things to say about women in general. go figure.

WebbedFeetOfClay   |2009-04-01 00:43:45 want to get more of a chance to figure him out. His homily on marriage is beautiful and reverential and sweet, he defends women from all sorts of allegations, affirms equality, but still on occasion has some really harsh language particularly regarding the fall. I'm starting to think that a lot of it is rhetorical with the understood theology of equality still present, but he is certainly tricky.

New Old Salt  - They Are Deluded   |2009-04-03 15:21:54 Luke 23:27-29, specifically v29, Jesus said "For the time will come when you will say, `Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!'" Isaiah 54:1-2 1 "Sing, O barren woman, you who never bore a child; burst into song, shout for joy, you who were never in labor; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband," says the LORD. Isaiah 56:1-5 3 Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the LORD say, "The LORD will surely exclude me from his people." And let not any eunuch complain, "I am only a dry tree." 4 For this is what the LORD says: "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant-- 5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off. ================== The last chunk shows that Jesus did not marry or have babies. Basically, from what I can tell, this is just a veiled attempt to counteract the exploding populations of another large monotheistic religion. But the upshot is the earth is hosting many more people than it can handle, if not now, then soon. As all you Bible readers, I'm sure, are aware, God sides with the land, not humans, when humans can't control themselves. In any case there are also many prophecies of the earth being ruined by the humans. :-( God has a history of driving people off the land after they abuse it and don't let it rest as he prescribes.

MakaDad   |2009-04-03 21:55:38 The world is suffering from overconsumption, not overpopulation.

New Old Salt   |2009-04-04 19:10:06 Overpopulation, overconsumption, over this, over that, over and over, until it's over. :-( I may embark to that discussion, but to over a non-verbose reply to yours here. :-) If you have overpopulation you're going to have overconsumption no matter how thinly sliced each part consumed by the individual.

emperorbma   |2009-04-04 19:45:31 Overpopulation means what, exactly? Does it mean that it is impossible to add 1 more human life?  If that were the metric, we're well below that point. There is no reason that the planet itself couldn't support lots more people provided we develop the right technologies to feed everyone. How about the line at which the planet itself would become a giant city? Even then, we aren't even close to that line yet. If I remember correctly, cities make up less than 4% of the surface area of the planet, at most. What is the metric we're using to determine overpopulation?  This is the thing that baffles me. Somehow, the only metric I am seeing is that people think that maybe we'll run out of resources in the future.

holmegm  - re:   |2009-04-06 12:09:53 emperorbma wrote: What is the metric we're using to determine overpopulation? "Overpopulation" means too many other people.

MakaDad   |2009-04-03 21:59:33 Nevermind. This whole topic has already been discussed today over in the Georgian Population Boom thread. Just read it.

New Old Salt   |2009-04-04 19:11:30 Yes, this discussion has been going on for quite some time! :-) Earth to Moon http://NewOldSalt.com/Earth_to_Moon_Overpopulation The More There is of Something, The Less Valuable It Becomes, Including People's Value of Other People http://NewOldSalt.com/Numerous_Stuff_Equal_Less... Collapse http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societies-Choose...

New Old Salt  - re:   |2009-04-12 10:07:25 Dear Emperor Obama (I thought you were getting a dog, not a cat, anyway…), I will field your question, even though it was MakaDad whose comment you tagged on to. emperorbma wrote: Overpopulation means what, exactly? As referenced in the scripture pointers I give, it doesn't matter how many people there are, as long as they don't let the land rest, as long as they overwork the land, they have overpopulated it and abused it and will be driven from it. However, many civilizations throughout time have answered this question themselves. How do we know this? Whether it's Easter Island which provides a great snap shot, or various places in Africa, they usually end up killing each other off, after killing off most of the countryside (plants and animals). So perhaps this makes it like what they say about a recession, you don't know you're in one until you start looking at the data from the past. emperorbma wrote: Does it mean that it is impossible to add 1 more human life? If that were the metric, we're well below that point. There is no reason that the planet itself couldn't support lots more people provided we develop the right technologies to feed everyone. Seems to me you are guessing. Have we tested this by having more people than we do now? (And it also seems to me that over 10 years ago I heard a UN report that even with perfect food distribution, not enough was grown to feed everyone, sorry I don't have a link.) I am troubled by answers that include a need for inventing new technologies. Hardly seems like part of God's plan that we need to create humongous cargo ships, airplanes, or trains, just to ferry food for people in congested areas incapable of growing enough food for the residents there. Clearly many cultures/citizens themselves have decided their country is overpopulated NOW.  They, I think, realize that live in VERY crowded conditions, having to walk mile upon mile for firewood, or water. They have so many kids they can't afford to feed them and brave illegal immigration in order to earn money elsewhere to send back to their families. This is the old "the grass is greener" saying, if it really is greener perhaps that means there are fewer grazers there? emperorbma wrote: How about the line at which the planet itself would become a giant city? Even then, we aren't even close to that line yet. If I remember correctly, cities make up less than 4% of the surface area of the planet, at most. What is the metric we're using to determine overpopulation?  This is the thing that baffles me. Somehow, the only metric I am seeing is that people think that maybe we'll run out of resources in the future. If you really want to know and see what overpopulation is, then all I can say is be careful, we know what our lord said, "ask and receive." I wrote this short essay explaining things: The More There is of Something, The Less Valuable It Becomes, Including People's Value of Other People http://NewOldSalt.com/Numerous_Stuff_Equal_ Less_Valuable Not long after I wrote it, I noticed a news item about how the govt. had decrease the dollar value of a human life, so obviously there is some metric being used. Why is the cost of so many things going up? Is it because resources are scarce or because the producers/vendors are greedy? Probably a measure of both. Check out the link to Collapse and you will get a much better handle on what over* is.  In the past cultures just destroyed themselves and moved on. But the scale of our consumption/population/pollution and not letting the planet rest is planetary. Clearly, based on OT/NT prophecy, humans are both the bane and blessing of our planet earth.

emperorbma   |2009-04-12 11:09:22 Quote: Dear Emperor Obama (I thought you were getting a dog, not a cat, anyway…), I will field your question, even though it was MakaDad whose comment you tagged on to. Well, that makes two people so far. I guess I better get used to this mistake thanks to our new president. For the record, "BMA" stands for my real-life initials, not my political aspirations and I was emperorbma long before 2007.  [p.s. as I've made abundantly clear, I'm libertarian, which makes Obama somewhat of my antithesis] On the matter of pets, I think you have me mistaken for someone else, I'm not getting any pets and I have always found dogs a bit too pushy for my tastes, anyway. I've always prefered cats for their independence. (Technically, this cat is the entire family's pet...) Quote: you don't know you're in one until you start looking at the data from the past. Acceptable assessment. I wouldn't really say it's impossible that overpopulation occurs, but in my opinion it is presently improbable. Quote: Seems to me you are guessing. Have we tested this by having more people than we do now? Nah, I was asking where we're drawing this "line in the sand." Frankly, I think the people who are crying overpopulation now are using scare tactics. Quote: I am troubled by answers that include a need for inventing new technologies. This was a hypothetical scenario, rather than an actual suggestion. Personally, I was (and still am) amenable to considering overpopulation to be a valid claim before that point is reached. Hence, my continuing discussion of the "planet-city" hypothetical scenario. Quote: Clearly many cultures/citizens themselves have decided their country is overpopulated NOW. Very much so. I hardly think this means there's a world overpopulation crisis at present, but I agree that cities can become far too dense for sanity. What I don't think is good is stuff like China's forced-abortion policies. Quote: If you really want to know and see what overpopulation is, then all I can say is be careful, we know what our lord said, "ask and receive." Nah, I just want to know where we're drawing the line in the sand. Once we start saying "X is overpopulated" we need to explain on what basis we believe that it is overpopulated. Quote: Why is the cost of so many things going up? Is it because resources are scarce or because the producers/vendors are greedy? Probably a measure of both. Perhaps. I think abusers of the market exist, but I also believe that if the market were genuinely free, the people would reject immoral vendors in favor of more virtuous producers. Quote: Clearly, based on OT/NT prophecy, humans are both the bane and blessing of our planet earth. Indeed, we are called as stewards of God's creation regardless of our interpretation of the available evidence about the present state of the planet.

New Old Salt   |2009-04-19 19:17:09 Quote: I better get used to this mistake thanks to our new president. I must admit that as soon as I saw your nick, years ago, I "misread" it, but not as Obama, that only started a few years ago. :-) It was only this recent confluence of events, his presidency, and your cat in the crown photo, that finally allowed me to write it. Quote: I just want to know where we're drawing the line in the sand. Once we start saying "X is overpopulated" we need to explain on what basis we believe that it is overpopulated. Ah, if only life were that simple there was a single number. :-) One main guide I think we should steer (ourselves) by is humility. Clearly the animal nature in many people wants to make them spread their genes far and wide. But God told us not to test him, so it makes more sense for us to err on the side of having extra left over to share, sacrifice, or plant, than to create so many mouths that people only get a thin slice of vanishing resources. And like I wrote above, many societies have already made the judgement about themselves being overpopulated. I'm sure, if you wanted, you could come up with the pseudocode that defines both manageable population and overpopulation, an equation-looking set of simple sentences. Quote: I think abusers of the market exist, but I also believe that if the market were genuinely free, the people would reject immoral vendors in favor of more virtuous producers. "Free market" seems to be a contradiction of terms and a rats nest of philosophies which I haven't attempted to unravel, mainly because I am certain that as long as evil and bullies exist, we will see nothing near perfection on this planet, until Jesus sets up his govt. I don't really have much hope in the current systems, quoting many Psalms, "the help of man is useless." In many places in the US things had been like they'd been for ages, nearly free access to the planet's bounty, but due to a number of factors (distilling down to greed and population size IMHO), "overpopulation" resulted in "overconsumption" which has resulted in some extinctions and some near-extinctions. I'm from the North East so the first examples that come to mind are over-fishing. And I'm not talking about some recent findings, I've been attuned to various problems since the 1970's, but reading through the book "Collapse*" clearly such problems have come and gone for thousands of years. the main difference is "back then" it was just an isolated society and/or their neighbors, however, things have gone "global" now. I am not in favor of forced abortions either, but what is the wise thing to do? Run up to that point so we know where it is? Or be humble on a planet filled with other people? If a person is against forced abortions it only seems prudent to prevent us from getting anywhere near that stage. Surely China is not the only society to have taken such steps. And surely anyone with the ability to look at existing societies and extrapolate to the future, realizes NO COUNTRY is above reaching that stage. While I am certain there is a limit for the entire earth, this is not how the earth works.  The earth is not as responsive as a rubber balloon, where some input/output it equally distributed. The earth is so huge that one society can be eating itself alive due to overpopulation->overconsumption, but another society someplace else can be perfectly happy. (I don't really think I'm telling you stuff you don't know, so don't be insulted.) If the cost of fuel becomes too high, or if there are wide scale earthquakes, if a nuclear device goes off, or a huge sun spot, something that greatly affects travel and communications, I believe most places will find themselves "overpopulated" with the emphasis no so much on how many people there are, but on the ability of the surrounding area to sustain them. Some places are so fragile they don't need a massive event to show this. And I would add that even though this only seems hypothetical now, events like this ARE described in prophecy and WILL happen. (Many of the people who said we were no where near overpopulated will be sifting through the rubble of a big box store, looking for scraps overlooked by previous scavengers, and where are community gardens? The fields that feed? They are hundreds/thousands of miles away.) Back to the this thread, I believe the Bible quotes I offer above, show their "quiverfull" philosophy to be misguided. Back to the Bible. CLEARLY it's the humans who destroy our living environment, and in this 21st century the list of possibilities as to how is very long. Isaiah 51:6 "The earth will become desolate because of its inhabitants, as the result of their deeds." (Perhaps off-topic, but related to the previous paragraph, I STRONGLY disagree with the notions that God is the destroyer or that God trashes the planet. It may seem that way based on some passages in the Bible, but Jesus points out so much insight into God's character that contradicts that notion. If it seems as though God is destroying the planet, I say it's NOT God issuing the destruction, but God has been holding it back from us and is finally letting it return. I take strong offense to preachers who have been stating things like, "if you think people have trashed the planet, just wait until you see what God does to it.") * I must admit that I think God made that man write "Collapse" even though he clearly is not a religious guy, or at least he has much disdain for Christianity. But I believe God is working to get his message(s) out there through as many channels as possible, to give everyone a chance to repent before the woes start in earnest.

emperorbma   |2009-04-20 00:14:18 Quote: One main guide I think we should steer (ourselves) by is humility. Absolutely. No dispute thus far. Quote: But God told us not to test him, so it makes more sense for us to err on the side of having extra left over to share, sacrifice, or plant, than to create so many mouths that people only get a thin slice of vanishing resources. Wait a second here, I'm not sure I agree with your use of hermeneutics. It's actually a good lesson and I hope you don't mind me going into it for a bit. I do not disagree that the Lord God does command us to "not put the Lord your God to the test, as [Israel] tested him at Massah." (Deuteronomy 6:16 - N.B. full context is important) Indeed, even Jesus Christ resists the devil's temptations in Matthew 4 and Luke 4 with the exact same Deuteronomic Commandment, so it is absolutely true that we should never faithlessly put God to the test... but, wait, there's more! Consider also the following Scripture passage: Quote: Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz: Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test. And he said, Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also?  Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign.  Behold, virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:10-14) Now, we know that the Lord is not contradicting Himself by asking Ahaz to test Him. But, on the face of this statement, it would seem to contradict what God previously commanded in Deuteronomy. So, what is different about what God was asking from Ahaz and what God told His people not to do? Well, what the Lord was asking of Ahaz is that he place his faith in God. Ahaz, ever defiant, was basically dissing God's command by blindly quoting the seemingly relevant Scriptural passage on the matter without regards to its true meaning, just as the devil abused Scripture in tempting Christ in Luke 4 and Matthew 4. What Deuteronomy was talking about is when Moses faithlessly struck the stones to provide water to the people of Israel. So, the Lord was clearly forbidding someone faithlessly testing Him. But, God never commanded Ahaz to be faithless, since He was telling the rebellious king to trust in the Word of God. Therefore, I would venture that we can place our trust firmly God without "testing the Lord" as long as we are doing so faithfully according to His Word and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Since God has commanded mankind to "Be fruitful and multiply," (Genesis 1:28) it is not merely animal instinct at play, but also a real commandment from God to reproduce. Notice that I am not saying that we should be unreasonable and fail to exercise self control in performing the God-given task of being "fruitful and multiplying," but I do not think that we can blindly say it is "testing the Lord" to reproduce, either. Returning to Luke 4 and Matthew 4, it is clear that the devil can and does sometimes wield Scripture in a manner that is contrary to its true meaning and intent.  Therefore, we must always be on guard and careful to read the Word of God with the guidance of the Holy Spirit so that we do not blindly apply passages without caring for their meaning. This warning is just as poignant for those who are being careless with "be fruitful and multiply" as it is of those who are careless with "do not test the Lord" and I was meaning it to apply to both. Quote: "Free market" seems to be a contradiction of terms and a rats nest of philosophies which I haven't attempted to unravel, mainly because I am certain that as long as evil and bullies exist, we will see nothing near perfection on this planet, until Jesus sets up his govt. I don't really have much hope in the current systems, quoting many Psalms, "the help of man is useless." Yes, by all means, sin is the Achilles' Heel of any man-made system. I am of the opinion, however, that the unchecked government allows an engine to concentrate much more evil than a free market ever could on its own. Hence, my libertarian economic philosophy and my rejection of excessive government control. Basically it is sort of like the difference between Babylon or Assyria (maybe even Judah and Israel/Samaria under their kings, as they got pretty bad too) and Israel under the Judges. I think Israel under the Judges was a markedly superior state, despite its obvious flaws. On that note, it is clear Babylon and Assyria are not considered the representatives of evil in the Bible for no reason. Likewise, Israel under the kings fell into false religions and Judah eventually became nearly as corrupt. Quote: Back to the this thread, I believe the Bible quotes I offer above, show their "quiverfull" philosophy to be misguided. Yup, this also falls under the pale of my critique of quoting Scripture w/o regards to context. Quote: I take strong offense to preachers who have been stating things like, "if you think people have trashed the planet, just wait until you see what God does to it." Yeah, I always find myself returning to Amos when these guys start to bug me: Quote: Woe to you who desire the day of the Lord! Why would you have the day of the Lord? It is darkness, and not light, as if a man fled from a lion, and a bear met him, or went into the house and leaned his hand against the wall, and a serpent bit him. Is not the day of the Lord darkness, and not light, and gloom with no brightness in it? I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies.  Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them; and the peace offerings of your fattened animals, I will not look upon them. Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. (Amos 5:18-24)

laika   |2009-04-12 12:58:25 New Old Salt wrote: I wrote this short essay explaining things: The More There is of Something, The Less Valuable It Becomes, Including People's Value of Other People and when conspicuous consumption is a culture's raison d'être, people become a commodity.

holmegm  - re: re:   |2009-04-21 15:59:51 New Old Salt wrote: I wrote this short essay explaining things: The More There is of Something, The Less Valuable It Becomes, Including People's Value of Other People Hmm ... so that's why Europeans, with falling populations, became more pro abortion and pro euthanasia?

laika   |2009-04-12 12:51:03 emperorbma wrote: Perhaps. I think abusers of the market exist, but I also believe that if the market were genuinely free, the people would reject immoral vendors in favor of more virtuous producers. so, if the market were truly free, people would pick Linus over Bill? or does free-as-in-beer represent a subversion of the free market in that example? i must say that the faith that you place in a free market surprises me, BTW.

emperorbma   |2009-04-12 16:16:38 Quote: so, if the market were truly free, people would pick Linus over Bill? or does free-as-in-beer represent a subversion of the free market in that example? Maybe. In some cases, I surmise that Bill may win out because his product does a better job catering to their niche. However, in general, I think when people realize the crap they have to endure to use his stuff, they will consider viable alternatives if presented with them by those such as Linus. Quote: i must say that the faith that you place in a free market surprises me, BTW. My basic concerns about the government are multi-fold: 1. The government is more likely to become corrupted by power, since it is, by nature, an elitist organization which involves only a select few. People today do not vote because they do not feel themselves a part of a system that takes their money without really considering them in the transaction. (Although, some safeguards were put in place, the key element of failure is the human one... e.g. Congressional pay raises and pork) 2. The government, as a result of the previous point, inevitably sucks power away from the people. Likewise, nobody acts to counter the trend because they see the government as a lofty entity that is "holier than thou." 3. The government, particularly when it operates as a socialist entity, but even also when it acts as a mixed economy as ours presently is, faces what is called a Calculation problem, where it has to guess at the market's direction beforehand and retool its capital production resources. However, even though we fall into general patterns, humanity is inherently unpredictable. This is especially a problem when the government is managing currency, banking and many capital goods systems. (e.g. health) Noting this, these were the exact same problems that led to the Great Depression that the Austrian Business Cycle theory predicted. 4. Likewise flawed is the intentional use of a labor-value system because it places the inherent value of market goods in labor used rather than the subjective value of the goods. Nevertheless, labor is not a guarantor of success. Even so, to a the present government, the market consists solely of labor value and it fails to recognize the real value of a good is in its subjective value. 5. Additionally, government education allows the government a tool to instill its propaganda into the people without teaching genuine critical thinking. Public schools gloss over the nation's flaws and present the nation as more pristine than it genuinely is. Soon, if this trend continues, we'll have indoctrinated America-drones who do not criticize but who follow blindly the American dream. This plays right into the hands of the corrupt businessmen and government officials who wield the authority over the education system. Overall, these and other concerns are sufficient for me to not place my blind trust in the government. My answer is that people should be responsible for themselves and live responsibly with concern for others as well. The only way a free market is truly able to exist and thrive is if the people take a certain civic pride (not the sin) and do not allow the government to become their nanny.

laika   |2009-04-12 19:26:45 emperorbma wrote: Public schools gloss over the nation's flaws and present the nation as more pristine than it genuinely is. Soon, if this trend continues, we'll have indoctrinated America-drones who do not criticize but who follow blindly the American dream. This plays right into the hands of the corrupt businessmen and government officials who wield the authority over the education system. but the American Dream is to possess and consume. that dream goes hand in hand with your free market. what would be the incentive for a privatized education system to indoctrinate contrary to that dream? and how would not glossing over the nation's flaws better serve the Dream? think of the post-WWII prosperity of the 1950s and 60s when civic mythologizing was high. how would reflecting on our national warts have better served that period of prosperity? emperorbma wrote: The only way a free market is truly able to exist and thrive is if the people take a certain civic pride (not the sin) and do not allow the government to become their nanny. what does a free market have to do with civic pride? the market looks like Wal-Mart, which performs with ruthless efficiency in out-competing other retailers much to the benefit of the consumer. where does civic pride come into that picture? emperorbma wrote: Overall, these and other concerns are sufficient for me to not place my blind trust in the government. My answer is that people should be responsible for themselves and live responsibly with concern for others as well. so blind trust in the marketplace is the answer? what does a free market have to do with living responsibly? the market succeeds when (like Wal-Mart) it brings us the most possible choices for the best price.

emperorbma   |2009-04-12 20:23:12 Quote: but the American Dream is to possess and consume. that dream goes hand in hand with your free market. what would be the incentive for a privatized education system to indoctrinate contrary to that dream? That's a bit of an assumption as to what I mean by a free market. Let me explain it to you with an example: What is the incentive of a private Catholic parish school to teach kiddos about Christ? Specialization and market niche. A Catholic school caters to the doctrinal needs of a Catholic person better than a public school. On the other hand, does this same school have a vested interest in presenting the USA in glowing terms? I'm thinking that, barring the government meddling in its affairs, it doesn't... See, when I say free market, I mean the freedom of the market not market libertine-ism. I do not divorce the concept of morality from my perspective, nor do I equivocate in maintaining that a moral outlook is essential to a properly implemented free market. Quote: and how would not glossing over the nation's flaws better serve the Dream? think of the post-WWII prosperity of the 1950s and 60s when civic mythologizing was high. how would reflecting on our national warts have better served that period of prosperity? Absolutely, if people ignore the flaws, the problems continue to fester and develop into a gangrene. That's the problem I'm talking about here. The consumers must be vigilant against abusive practices in a true free market. You assume I mean cheap liberty that someone can do anything they want with. In fact, I mean liberty at the cost of constant vigilance. I'm not so stupid to believe that we cannot be lulled by convenience into doing stupid things, but we need to be on guard for them also. Quote: what does a free market have to do with civic pride? the market looks like Wal-Mart, which performs with ruthless efficiency in out-competing other retailers much to the benefit of the consumer. where does civic pride come into that picture? Simple enough, you care enough about your fellow citizen to stand up for his rights as well as your own. When Wal-Mart coerces people, governments and citizens, it is explicitly violating one of the basic free market principles of non-aggression. Now, you suggest, is not all competition aggression? By no means. Fair competition doesn't cheat its fellow competitor and it doesn't leverage monopolistic contracts. Governments, on the other hand, do violate this principle in many ways, not in the least since taxation is an aggressive and coercive act. I've granted that taxation is at best an acceptable concession for maintaining good justice and societal order, but at worst it is most assuredly racketeering and corruption and waste MUST be spoken against with much concern for the wellbeing of everyone. A government can, by its own whim, grant a monopoly to a company. Do we really want this sort of power being in the hands of a few people who can easily become corrupted by greed? I suggest that it would be wiser to let the market compete fairly and focus on culling those who abuse the system, but what do I know? Quote: so blind trust in the marketplace is the answer? what does a free market have to do with living responsibly? the market succeeds when (like Wal-Mart) it brings us the most possible choices for the best price. Nope. I trust nothing further than I can see the work of Christ in it. Not markets, not governments, not men in general. I would ask, do not socialists place their blind trust in the government? This is what I'm speaking against. The issue is that, as I see it, with a properly implemented free market, it presents far fewer opportunities for people to do things which are not Christ-like because a society which is concerned for its fellow man is a society which will not tolerate any abuse of its fellow man. A market can be self-policing and everyone in it is a participant. Remember, I said something about the subjective theory of values being important also. A subjective value includes its moral component. Governments work through violence, force, taxation and coercion... all of which are non-ideal and undermine the basic principles of concern for a fellow citizen when implemented as a socialist infrastructure. Are we, the people, honorary members of the government? No. Does Obama consult us when he makes his spending sprees? No. Why, then, should I exalt the virtues of socialist government when they amount to tyranny and forced obedience to corrupted virtues? There is something about "abiding by the letter" but not "abiding by the spirit" that I'm seeing at play in socialism. It is simple, I don't think charity at gunpoint is a good form of charity. By all means, lets be charitable. But let's be charitable because we love our neighbor not because the government is threatening to foreclose our property. If anything, I think our Lord would decry false charity as much as he denounced the Pharisees and their hypocritical giving. P.S. Counter to expectations, many libertarian people tend to be quite frugal and advocate frugality along with market freedom. As such, it's a little unfair to pin me as an advocate of rampant consumerism as you seem to be. Considering my perspective, I think it's fair to say I oppose exactly the same things you do but I think it is better done through treating people fairly instead of making the government a pan-supervisor.

laika   |2009-04-12 23:34:50 emperorbma wrote: Simple enough, you care enough about your fellow citizen to stand up for his rights as well as your own. When Wal-Mart coerces people, governments and citizens, it is explicitly violating one of the basic free market principles of non-aggression. Now, you suggest, is not all competition aggression? By no means. Fair competition doesn't cheat its fellow competitor and it doesn't leverage monopolistic contracts. but Wal-Mart is a perfect example of what an unfettered market looks like. a free market is red in tooth and claw. emperorbma standing outside the ring insisting that the Queensbury rules be observed is likely to be ineffective against such a juggernaut.

emperorbma   |2009-04-13 13:08:51 Quote: but Wal-Mart is a perfect example of what an unfettered market looks like. a free market is red in tooth and claw. emperorbma standing outside the ring insisting that the Queensbury rules be observed is likely to be ineffective against such a juggernaut. Perhaps I don't share the same cynicism that a free market's only necessary conclusion is "law of the jungle." Which, as you note, is rather odd considering my usual cynicality. In my defense, I think the government appears a much more significant long term threat than a market ever could be and there are means of reacting to a market which we do not possess with regards to a government. The government can beat up on people with impunity. In the market, we can fight back.

laika   |2009-04-15 00:22:48 emperorbma wrote: In my defense, I think the government appears a much more significant long term threat than a market ever could be and there are means of reacting to a market which we do not possess with regards to a government. The government can beat up on people with impunity. In the market, we can fight back. but our form of government allows us to elect who we will. OTOH, you and i had no say in who was chosen to run the "too big to fail" companies into the ground, taking the economy down with them.

emperorbma   |2009-04-15 09:47:45 Quote: but our form of government allows us to elect who we will. Theoretically. In terms of implementation, it is a shell game in which either of the candidates ends up doing the same thing. Quote: OTOH, you and i had no say in who was chosen to run the "too big to fail" companies into the ground, taking the economy down with them. True enough, that you did not. However, those whom we did have a "say" in choosing explicitly chose to throw away our money to keep these broken companies afloat. (against the will of the people, I might add, as polls show the people did NOT support the bailout) The bailout exacerbates the already bad situation by making the economy itself the victim. The entire economy need not have tanked in a free market, because if the banks were allowed to simply fail, it would create a new niche market for investors.  The failure is the effect of reaping what one has sown and, if one sows unwisely, in this case we have failure. Instead of allowing nature to take its course, not to mention something that God Himself has explicitly described in detail, our government had to meddle in it. If the companies would simply have been allowed to fail, other investors with less asinine strategies have a very strong economic incentive to come in to clean up the mess. Instead their money is being wasted on the Frankensteinian pipe dream of keeping dead corpses moving. So, now, we are stuck with an undead economy into which we pump billions of dollars in the vain hope of it surviving for another day. (Yes, I'm likening it to necromancy...)

laika   |2009-04-16 00:27:36 emperorbma wrote: However, those whom we did have a "say" in choosing explicitly chose to throw away our money to keep these broken companies afloat. (against the will of the people, I might add, as polls show the people did NOT support the bailout) The bailout exacerbates the already bad situation by making the economy itself the victim. to be honest, i'm just as curious as the next person to see what would happen if we let the economy really crash. and i'd like to see sky-high fuel prices in the mix, for that matter. a real Grapes of Wrath on steroids sort of correction might be interesting. which reminds me that i heard that Cormac McCarthy's The Road is headed for the Big Screen with Viggo Mortenson as "the man"!

emperorbma   |2009-04-16 18:33:43 Quote: to be honest, i'm just as curious as the next person to see what would happen if we let the economy really crash. and i'd like to see sky-high fuel prices in the mix, for that matter. a real Grapes of Wrath on steroids sort of correction might be interesting. I'm guessing that if the government keeps up its current spending policy, we'll see that happen before too long. You can only place your children so far in debt before the debt creeps into your own lifespan.

New Old Salt  - re:   |2009-04-19 18:04:23 laika wrote: and when conspicuous consumption is a culture's raison d'être, people become a commodity. Even before then, I'd say. Civilizations have been taking slaves for millennia. (I've been told.)

emperorbma   |2009-04-20 00:15:44 True, but it is only in these modern times slavery can be disguised as economic independence.

Only registered users can write comments!

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.20

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."