• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Quiverfull: More Children for God's Army

1069

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
24,975
Reaction score
5,126
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Quiverfull: More Children for God's Army

Kathryn Joyce

"Between 1985 and 1990, three books were published by small, independent Christian presses that would have come to have a profound impact on Christian Right thinking on family planning, feminism and birth control. Charles Provan's The Bible and Birth Control, Mary Pride's The Way Home: Away from Feminism and Back to Reality, and Rick and Jan Hess's A Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ. Together, these three books laid a comprehensive framework for the pro-natalist, anti-birth control movement today known as Quiverfull, wherein believers eschew all forms of birth control, natural and hormonal, and argue that Christian families should leave the number of children they have entirely in the hands of God.
>snip<
... I profiled a group of Quiverfull believers who had broods of 8, 11, 13 and 14 children, and who spoke of their decision to have such large families as a form of spiritual warfare. That much is reflected in their name, taken from 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 will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate." Quiverfull mothers think of their children as no mere movement, but as an army they're building for God.
Quiverfull parents try to have upwards of six children. They homeschool their families, attend fundamentalist churches, and follow biblical guidelines of male headship - "father knows best" - and female submissiveness. They refuse any attempt to regulate pregnancy. Quiverfull probably began as a self-conscious movement with the publication of Rick and Jan Hess's 1989 book, A Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ, in which they argue that God, as the "Great Physician" and sole "Birth Controller," is in charge of opening and closing the womb on a case-by-case basis. Women's attempts to control their own bodies - the Lord's temple - are a seizure of divine power.
Its word-of-mouth growth can be traced back to conservative Protestant critiques of contraception, and the growing belief among evangelicals that birth control pills are an "abortifacient" (that hormonal contraception such as the pill can cause the "chemical abortion" of accidentally fertilized eggs). This is one of the strongest ties between Quiverfull conviction and the larger Christian Right, connecting a radically-expanded "pro-life" agenda that has broadened its political interests from abortion, to birth control and sexual abstinence, to international pro-natalist and pro-population movements. (Such an expanded agenda was on full display this fall at the Contraception is Not the Answer conference in Illinois) >snip<
Pride's book - a grassroots hit among the homeschooling movement - denounced birth control as the hallmark of selfish feminists and paved the way for women's careers and abortion. "Family planning is the mother of abortion. A generation had to be indoctrinated in the ideal of planning children around personal convenience before abortion could be popular," Pride argued, calling for Christians to fight abortion by demonstrating that children were "unqualified blessings" by having as many as God gave them.
A number of families in the past twenty years have followed Pride's and the Hess's charge. Though there are no exact figures for the size of the movement, the number of families that identify as Quiverfull is likely in the low tens of thousands. In its most benign self-descriptions, Quiverfull is about faith, pure and simple: faith that God won't give a woman more children than she can handle, and faith that by opening themselves up receive multiple "blessings" - in the form of children - they will bring God's favor upon them in other areas of life as well. God "deals with the hearts" about birth control, and if they submit, they are cared for.


But a more disturbing rationale for Quiverfull can also be found in its founding texts. After arguing Scripture, the Hesses point to a number of more worldly effects that a Christian embrace of Quiverfull could bring. "When at the height of the Reagan Revolution," they write, "the conservative faction in Washington was enforced [sic] with squads of new conservative congressmen, legislators often found themselves handcuffed by lack of like-minded staff. There simply weren't enough conservatives trained to serve in Washington in the lower and middle capacities." But if just eight million American Christians began supplying more "arrows for the war" by having six children or more, they propose that the Christian Right ranks could rise to 550 million within a century.


The language of spiritual warfare, demographic victory in the culture war through population shifts drastic enough to influence the law, and the inversion of old patriarchal traditions to seem like rebellion against modern society, may seem dramatic, but these are key parts of the religious and pro-family agenda to fight birth control that has drawn the attention of policy makers on the right and in the middle, and deserves the attention of anyone concerned with reproductive freedom."
>snip<


link

For a fuller portrait of the movement and its members, read this article:
'Arrows for the War'.

I wasn't initially sure which board to post this on; it's political; it's partisan; it has to do with education, it has to do with contraception, it has to do with health.
Momentarily, I entertained the idea of posting it in the "conspiracy theories" section. But I couldn't figure out who was being paranoid: them, or me. :mrgreen:

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this movement.

First, I'd like to discuss whether or not it's even feasible to raise one's children to be "soldiers" for any particular cause or political movement, no matter how valid, or even to raise them to share one's political ideals, or even to be interested in politics and social issues at all.

I've never personally had much luck with it (although admittedly I've never taken it to this extreme; my attempts to persuade my kids to share my social ideals and political views and my way of thinking have never included isolating them from the rest of the world and from anyone else who could possibly influence them or introduce them to other viewpoints).

And if it is even remotely possible to indoctrinate children from birth into an extremist political view, in fact to breed them for the specific purpose of creating a radical new socio-political faction, an "army of God", is it ethical to do so?


Anyway, your thoughts on this would be most welcome.
 
Well, here's my take on it.

I believe at one time gender roles and gender distinctions served a somewhat useful purpose.
Until this century, women had no way to control their fertility (other than, say, refusing to marry and joining a convent, which was in fact considered a valid option, one which many females throughout history have availed themselves of).

Remaining single was not an option for the majority of women; society (all societies; in this post, I'm primarily addressing Western society, however) was patriarchal.
Women in general were not allowed to be self-supporting.
They were denied the means and the opportunity to support themselves.
Thus their only options were to live under the auspices of some man (father, brother, husband; and later in life, son or son-in-law) or to rely upon the patronage of the Church (a popular option for women who did not want any man, or who were not wanted by any; also for women who feared risking their lives in childbirth; until the mid-1800s, one in every four to seven childbirths resulted in maternal death by puerperal fever; by the 20th century, it was still one in nine).

Protestantism denied women this escape route, the option of a celibate life of religious servitude, since it did not maintain colonies of nuns, and relied upon married female parishioners to handle the charitable (ie "unpaid") work that nuns performed in the Catholic Church.

Okay, so the point of all that is throughout history, right up to this century, the vast majority of Catholic women had a choice only between marriage or a convent, and the vast majority of protestant women had no choice at all. Marriage.

Eastern women, in countries where polygamy flourished, fared no better, of course... but for the purpose of this thread I'm only addressing the purpose of gender roles in Western civilization (and why they now serve no purpose, and ought to be dispensed with).

In a marriage, as I mentioned, the average woman was likely to have upwards of ten pregnancies.
Not all of those would result in a live birth, however.
Malnourishment (specifically iron deficiency and lack of folic acid in the diet), hard physical labor, and other factors such as lack of modern-day health care made miscarriage more common than it is today.
Infant mortality was high as well. Many children died before age five.
In the 1800s, the average woman raised seven children to adulthood.

Pregnancy was dangerous; maternal mortality was an ever-present threat in the pre-antibiotic days before WWII.

Children, however, once past infancy, made life easier; most families before the 20th century were rural, and children served as farm laborers from the time they could walk.

A family with many children tended to be more prosperous, rather than less so (as today), because many children meant many free laborers.
No less so in cities, where children as young as five or six entered the workforce and earned a few pennies a day laboring in factories (the conditions of which, today, would qualify them as 'sweat shops") alongside their parents.

In the 20th century, however, our society became more industrialized and prosperous and our culture a little gentler and more humane, changing the way we viewed children (and parenthood).
Laws were passed against child labor.
Laws were passed that children had to be educated.
Laws were passed and social programs established to protect the children of the poor from malnourishment and/or outright starvation, and from other deprivations.
We entered a new era where society placed a premium on protecting children's innocence and acknowledging their vulnerability.
Children were no longer understood to be free or low-cost laborers, contributing to the financial security and material welfare of their families from a young age.
Children were now non-contributing dependents to be protected and sheltered.

Needless to say, it no longer availed the poorest of families to have the most children.
Previously, they had needed them just to get by.
In this new, child-centric culture, they couldn't afford to support them all.

Antibiotics became widely available after WWII, vaccines were developed for many common illnesses that had previously claimed the lives of small children, and the rates of both infant and maternal mortality declined.
It was no longer necessary to endure ten pregnancies in hopes of raising two children to adulthood.
Now, it was reasonably likely that all offspring born would survive, and families were able to stop thinking in terms of having "spares".

In due time, along came contraception; eventually, by the mid-to-late 20th century, it was widely available at low cost. Yippee.
Abortion was legalized in the early 70s.
Now women had the means to limit the size of their families.

Women's liberation:
Throughout the 20th century, it was becoming more and more feasible for women to choose to remain single... or to support themselves and their children in the event that a spouse died or deserted them.
After the women's liberation movement of the late 60s, however, the goal became not just subsistence-level survival, but equality for females.

Anyway, that's my condensed version of women's recent history; if you think it's wrong, feel free to speak up.
I don't have any formal education to speak of, so I could well be mistaken about one thing or another, although I have read a lot of books and listened to many smart people.

All of the points I just touched on address why I believe that gender roles are obsolete today; no longer necessary and no longer even desirable.
I believe they are merely useless remnants of a less worthwhile era, therefore without any inherent value themselves.

I understand that some people like gender roles, and I would never stand in the way of their playing a particular role... but I think it's important to recognize that this is merely fun and games today. It's a role-playing game. It's a choice you can make at will, to adopt a particular role, and to shed it when you get tired of playing.

And I think it's important to realize that gender roles were not always- were not, until recently- a game or a "choice".
They were an imperative. They were a survival mechanism.
And many women got the shaft because of them. They got the short end of the stick, because biology literally forced them to assume cultural roles that placed them second to men. There was no choice about it.

Now that women control their biology and society has become less patriarchal and has opened to admit women beyond the confines of the home and into the public sphere, there is no longer any inherent benefit to voluntarily adopting a particular "gender role", unless one just wants to because one thinks it's fun, for whatever unfathomable reason.

Women stayed home in the past because they could do nothing else.
Housework, cooking, farm work, and child-rearing, in the age before running water and electricity, was a full-time job; more than that, in fact. It was a job at which women labored 16 to 18 hours a day.

In the present time, however, keeping a house no longer takes more than minutes a day. If you cook fancy meals, perhaps an hour a day.
There is nothing about it that should prevent women from pursuing fulfilling opportunities and gainful endeavors outside the home, in the larger world.

Children are no longer workers. They are now non-contributing dependents for the first two decades of their lives.
There is no reason to have a lot of them.
Every family has limited resources (some more limited than others), and the fewer children a family has, the greater share of the family's resources can be allotted to each.

This is by no means criticizing those who choose to have large families or to invent work for themselves which keeps them in the home, isolated from the outside world.

But to claim that this choice is necessary- or desirable for everyone, or even most- is just laughable.

It requires a complete denial of the (mostly quite positive) changes the world has undergone in the past century.

Thanks for letting me ramble, and please feel free to jump in with opinions.
 
Last edited:
Momentarily, I entertained the idea of posting it in the "conspiracy theories" section. But I couldn't figure out who was being paranoid: them, or me. :mrgreen:

Really, a little of both. They are right, that "demographic warfare" is an effective-- if expensive and slow-- means of social change, and that it's the only way they're going to acheive the more extremist parts of their social agenda. I've been making this argument for years, and pretty much everyone I'm normally aligned with has been ignoring it in favor of neo-Malthusian babble.

Of course, the ideal of large families-- and socially reinforcing extended families-- is just about the only point I agree with Quiverfull upon.

1069 said:
First, I'd like to discuss whether or not it's even feasible to raise one's children to be "soldiers" for any particular cause...

Certainly. It just depends on how much you're willing to risk their ability to forge their own identities-- which isn't much of an issue for people whose morality is based on submission to a higher power.

1069 said:
I've never personally had much luck with it...

Your children may not be passionate about the same issues you are, and they may not share your interests-- but I am willing to bet that they share more of your moral values than they reject. Or that they will, once they're grown and past their adolescent rebelliousness.

1069 said:
And if it is even remotely possible to indoctrinate children from birth into an extremist political view ... is it ethical to do so?

"Extremist" is a relative term. Is it unethical to attempt to indoctrinate your children into your own political and moral (since they are related) beliefs?

I'd argue that you're objecting to this on the basis of the content of those beliefs, and not on the practice of raising their children to hold them.

And on to your next post:

1069 said:
All of the points I just touched on address why I believe that gender roles are obsolete today; no longer necessary and no longer even desirable. I believe they are merely useless remnants of a less worthwhile era, therefore without any inherent value themselves.

While you're absolutely correct that we've removed the biological necessity of gender roles, I don't think that their retention is purely cultural; interfering with the biological process doesn't change the evolved instincts that were based on it.

I share your revulsion to enforced submissiveness, but I think that's more a product of cultural-- particularly religious-- attitudes than any innate character of the human species. I don't think gender roles or the division of labor require this submissiveness, as evinced by related behavior in near-human primates.

1069 said:
We entered a new era where society placed a premium on protecting children's innocence and acknowledging their vulnerability. ... Children were now non-contributing dependents to be protected and sheltered.

While I tend to agree with you on the good of this point, I think this is where a lot of dangerous social trends started in Western society. This preoccupation with "innocence" and sheltering children from the harshness of the world is causing a lot of the naivete and simple unpreparedness that I'm seeing in so many young adults... and I'm convinced that prolonged adolescence is toxic in its own right.

We need to protect our children... but our children, in order to grow up to become wise adults, need to be able to see what we're protecting them from. And we shouldn't be trying to protect them from adulthood.

1069 said:
This is by no means criticizing those who choose to have large families or to invent work for themselves which keeps them in the home, isolated from the outside world. But to claim that this choice is necessary- or desirable for everyone, or even most- is just laughable.

I think our cultural tendency to reject large families-- and even to reject procreation entirely, in some cases-- is unhealthy, and based in attitudes that are even more unhealthy. It's based on consumerist notions of "happiness" that revolve around the acquisition and consumption of unneeded (and often pointless) material goods instead of human relationships.

I really do believe that people who refuse to marry and couples who refuse to raise children are harming themselves. I won't criticize them for it, and I certainly wouldn't interfere in their decision... but people need to know that it isn't their only choice.
 
While I tend to agree with you on the good of this point, I think this is where a lot of dangerous social trends started in Western society. This preoccupation with "innocence" and sheltering children from the harshness of the world is causing a lot of the naivete and simple unpreparedness that I'm seeing in so many young adults... and I'm convinced that prolonged adolescence is toxic in its own right.

We need to protect our children... but our children, in order to grow up to become wise adults, need to be able to see what we're protecting them from. And we shouldn't be trying to protect them from adulthood.

Yes, we discussed this once on another thread; at the time, I suggested that there was some social benefit to this extended childhood that we impose on people in western society.
Due to your input and that of others, as well as my own anecdotal history, I've since changed my view.
I am now much more inclined to agree with you; this unnatural sheltering does more harm than good, I think.

I really do believe that people who refuse to marry and couples who refuse to raise children are harming themselves. I won't criticize them for it, and I certainly wouldn't interfere in their decision... but people need to know that it isn't their only choice.

I can't say I agree that they're harming themselves; but I can certainly relate to your tolerance level toward a decision that you personally believe to be detrimental both to individuals and to society.
It mirrors, exactly, my feelings toward those who choose to have large families.
I would never interfere, even if I had the power to, and I would probably never voice my objections publicly, except when they choose to hold themselves up as a model of "the right way for everyone" and tell others that their way is wrong.
Only then will I openly criticize the personal (reproductive, career, parenting, etc) choices of others. And that is because, by displaying their personal choices as a public example and suggesting (or demanding) that others follow it, they invite criticism and dissent.
Dissent is a good thing; it provides checks and balances, and keeps extremists on both sides of an issue in check.
I am of the opinion at this point that there probably is no one right way that is best for everyone, in this or any other matter.
Although there are ways that are measurably "better" or "worse" for society in general.
 
Last edited:
Thankfully idiots like these aren't very numerous. Overpopulation is already a problem in many areas of the world and it certainly will be in the future. The earth can only support so many people and we are rapidly approaching that number. As more people are born and more people become industrialized, we consume resources at an ever growing rate. This is simply not sustainable. It is vital that we realize this problem and solve it before it becomes an issue.
 
Well, radical islamists raise their children to 'hate' from the age of 3. Citing jihadist poems. So indoctrination at such a young age is possible.

I too, am part of a personal "knighthood" (so to speak) with God. A spiritual 'pact' that I made with Jehova only a few years ago. But I would never enact violence on anyone unless in defense of self, family, friends, and country. Nor would I enact in a pre-emptive strike, unless I had 110% proof that I or anyone I knew was in danger. I try to remain peaceful, the way God intended for me to be.

Quiverfull... take away the God's Army part of it, training younglings to kill or whatever, and I see nothing wrong with it. Tis just another ideaology, like Indigo, or Liberalism.
 
Thankfully idiots like these aren't very numerous. Overpopulation is already a problem in many areas of the world and it certainly will be in the future. The earth can only support so many people and we are rapidly approaching that number. As more people are born and more people become industrialized, we consume resources at an ever growing rate. This is simply not sustainable. It is vital that we realize this problem and solve it before it becomes an issue.


Ah, is that what wars are for? Population control? I suppose from one perspective that could be true. But Abortion should never be an option. I'd rather see 100 adults killed than see 1,000 fetuses aborted. Why shouldn't they have a chance to try and make a difference?

That, and with all the budget cuts at NASA, we'll never be able to expand.
 
[COLOR="Navy[b]Quiverfull parents try to have upwards of six children.[/QUOTE]

Not true. There is no specific number. One can have two children, 10 children, or no children and be quiverfull.

[QUOTE="1069, post: 440585, member: 3621"]They homeschool their families, attend fundamentalist churches, and follow biblical guidelines of male headship - "father knows best" - and female submissiveness.


Again, not true. Not ALL quiverfull families homeschool, attend fundamentalist churches or "follow biblical guidelines of male headship."

[They refuse any attempt to regulate pregnancy.

And another "not true" statement. Many QF women use nursing as a natural means of spacing children, others have no qualms with NFP. Some use progesterone to regulate cycles and/or prevent miscarriage (which I personally see as NOT leaving things in God's hands...but that's me.)

Its word-of-mouth growth can be traced back to conservative Protestant critiques of contraception, and the growing belief among evangelicals that birth control pills are an "abortifacient" (that hormonal contraception such as the pill can cause the "chemical abortion" of accidentally fertilized eggs).

It is not a belief, but a FACT that chemical BC sometimes prevents pregnancy by creating conditions whereby a fertilized egg will not implant. It is written in the insert that comes in the BC package, and is also written in the PDR.

[I'd love to hear your thoughts on this movement.

Though I identify myself as Quiverfull, and am a posting member of the QF Digest, I don't consider myself a "member" of the movement because I came to my conviction from a completely different place, and indeed have a MUCH different idea of what being QF means.

[First, I'd like to discuss whether or not it's even feasible to raise one's children to be "soldiers" for any particular cause or political movement, no matter how valid, or even to raise them to share one's political ideals, or even to be interested in politics and social issues at all.

You sure can.

[I've never personally had much luck with it (although admittedly I've never taken it to this extreme; my attempts to persuade my kids to share my social ideals and political views and my way of thinking have never included isolating them from the rest of the world and from anyone else who could possibly influence them or introduce them to other viewpoints).

QF (to a QFer) is not a political viewpoint.

[And if it is even remotely possible to indoctrinate children from birth into an extremist political view, in fact to breed them for the specific purpose of creating a radical new socio-political faction, an "army of God", is it ethical to do so?

You wouldn't accept Christian homeschool links because they were "biased," but you will accept wholesale this woman's interpretation of what is means to be QF? Being QF is NOT about "breeding children for the specific purpose of creating a radical new political faction." "Army of God" is a spiritual term and refers to all believers who wrestle not with flesh and blood but with the powers of darkness.


[Anyway, your thoughts on this would be most welcome.

You got'em!
 
"Army of God" is a spiritual term and refers to all believers who wrestle not with flesh and blood but with the powers of darkness.

So is "jihad", to moderate Muslims (who comprise the vast majority).
As with any religious group, it's the fringe element you've got to watch out for.


Again, not true. Not ALL quiverfull families homeschool, attend fundamentalist churches or "follow biblical guidelines of male headship"...

I don't care if they do.
I see this as the female equivalent of "Promise Keepers".
If patriarchy, male domination and female subordination, and traditional prescribed gender roles are what float your boat, more power to you.
As long it's consensual and as long as those who practice it realize that it is just a game, and that they are free to stop playing and discard the chosen "role" at any time.
Like I said earlier:

"I understand that some people like gender roles, and I would never stand in the way of their playing a particular role... but I think it's important to recognize that this is merely fun and games today. It's a role-playing game. It's a choice you can make at will, to adopt a particular role, and to shed it when you get tired of playing.

And I think it's important to realize that gender roles were not always- were not, until recently- a game or a "choice".
They were an imperative. They were a survival mechanism.
And many women got the shaft because of them. They got the short end of the stick, because biology literally forced them to assume cultural roles that placed them second to men. There was no choice about it.

Now that women control their biology and society has become less patriarchal and has opened to admit women beyond the confines of the home and into the public sphere, there is no longer any inherent benefit to voluntarily adopting a particular "gender role", unless one just wants to because one thinks it's fun, for whatever unfathomable reason."


I'm quite a tolerant person.
Women can pretend to be inferior beings redeemed only by their biological function as incubators to fetuses if they want to.
Men can pretend to be all-knowing patriarchs whose role in life is to serve as physical, moral, and spiritual guardians and shepherds to their wives.
If a couple gets bored with this game, they can jointly decide to quit playing; if one of them doesn't want to stop playing, then the other can move out and start divorce proceedings.
I think this "traditional gender role" game sounds pretty silly, personally, but it doesn't hurt me any if someone else wants to play it.
Couples can pretend to be Kaptain Kangaroo and Mr. Green Jeans, for all I give a crap; whatever works, whatever makes them happy.

It's only when these outlandish fundamentalist cults try to meddle in politics or push for federal and state legislation that infringes upon my human and civil rights and constitutionally-protected freedoms that I take exception.
 
Last edited:
I don't care if they do.
I see this as the female equivalent of "Promise Keepers".
If patriarchy, male domination and female subordination, and traditional prescribed gender roles are what float your boat, more power to you.
As long it's consensual and as long as those who practice it realize that it is just a game, and that they are free to stop playing and discard the chosen "role" at any time.
Like I said earlier:

"I understand that some people like gender roles, and I would never stand in the way of their playing a particular role... but I think it's important to recognize that this is merely fun and games today. It's a role-playing game. It's a choice you can make at will, to adopt a particular role, and to shed it when you get tired of playing.

And I think it's important to realize that gender roles were not always- were not, until recently- a game or a "choice".
They were an imperative. They were a survival mechanism.
And many women got the shaft because of them. They got the short end of the stick, because biology literally forced them to assume cultural roles that placed them second to men. There was no choice about it.

Now that women control their biology and society has become less patriarchal and has opened to admit women beyond the confines of the home and into the public sphere, there is no longer any inherent benefit to voluntarily adopting a particular "gender role", unless one just wants to because one thinks it's fun, for whatever unfathomable reason."


I'm quite a tolerant person.
Women can pretend to be inferior beings redeemed only by their biological function as incubators to fetuses if they want to.
Men can pretend to be all-knowing patriarchs whose role in life is to serve as physical, moral, and spiritual guardians and shepherds to their wives.
If a couple gets bored with this game, they can jointly decide to quit playing; if one of them doesn't want to stop playing, then the other can move out and start divorce proceedings.
I think this "traditional gender role" game sounds pretty silly, personally, but it doesn't hurt me any if someone else wants to play it.
Couples can pretend to be Kaptain Kangaroo and Mr. Green Jeans, for all I give a crap; whatever works, whatever makes them happy.

It's only when these outlandish fundamentalist cults try to meddle in politics or push for federal and state legislation that infringes upon my human and civil rights and constitutionally-protected freedoms that I take exception.


Okay...so now, how about you address my post?

If you had actually read what I said, I said NOT all QF families practice "the Biblical concept of headship." You said, "I don't care if they do." And then made it very VERY clear that you do indeed care...something you want to share?

I was under the apparently misguided perception that you wanted to talk about QF, which I am very happy to do. But it seems you REALLY want to talk about Patriarchy...so start another thread.

Meanwhile, address my post.
 
And another "not true" statement. Many QF women use nursing as a natural means of spacing children, others have no qualms with NFP. Some use progesterone to regulate cycles and/or prevent miscarriage (which I personally see as NOT leaving things in God's hands...but that's me.)

Donkey manure! I just clicked on the Quiverfull Digest and the very first thing I read was: "The QuiverFull! Digest is an Internet-based forum for Christian couples who eagerly accept their children as blessings from God and eschew birth control, natural family planning and sterilization."

link

Get that? The Quiverfull website says Quiverfull is for Christian couples who eschew natural family planning.
So quit your dissembling.

I also see, on the Quiverfull site, the book this whole cult is based on: Birthing God's Mighty Warriors, by Rachel Scott, according to the Quiverfull site: "A hard-hitting, scripturally based expose on the emotional, physical, and spirtual damage caused by the secular idea of birth control.

We are living in the last days. An annointed generation must come to earth to help prepare the way of the Lord. Many in this generation will be children. Will these chosen children be allowed to come? Satan is trying hard to prevent their conceptions and births. Birthing God’s Mighty Warriors exposes how Satan has used the secular idea of choice and modern medical advances to convince God’s people to limit their family size through birth control and sterilization. Sadly, thousands of couples are suffering emotionally, physically, and spiritually because they have chosen their own path. This book exposes how the enemy is using human reasoning, deception in the media, ideas in pop culture, and lack of knowledge of God’s Word to keep God’s people bound to a worldly mindset. Birthing God’s Mighty Warriors offers hope for restoration through God’s forgiveness. By revealing truth, it challenges young couples to learn from the mistakes of the past so they can be open to bring forth this anointed generation of children."


The darned cover of the book depicts somebody aiming a lethal weapon. :?

As far as I'm concerned, the whole dog and pony show is nuts, as are all voluntary participants therein.

PS I like how the Quiverfull site says "The enemy is using human reasoning... (to keep God’s people bound to a worldly mindset)."
Reason is the "enemy", according to Quiverfull. They've chosen to combat it with ignorance, misinformation, and absurdity.

Frankly, I wouldn't lay odds on their chances of success. ;)
 
Donkey manure! I just clicked on the Quiverfull Digest and the very first thing I read was: "The QuiverFull! Digest is an Internet-based forum for Christian couples who eagerly accept their children as blessings from God and eschew birth control, natural family planning and sterilization."

link

Get that? The Quiverfull website says Quiverfull is for Christian couples who eschew natural family planning.
So quit your dissembling.

I'm not dissembling at all. You read the homepage of the website. I have been a member of the Digest for five years. And while every now and again the moderator will post a note that QFers don't do NFP, they still talk about it.

I also see, on the Quiverfull site, the book this whole cult is based on: Birthing God's Mighty Warriors, by Rachel Scott,

No it's not. That book has come out just this past year. The QF movement is older than that.

The darned cover of the book depicts somebody aiming a lethal weapon. :?

I wouldn't know.

As far as I'm concerned, the whole dog and pony show is nuts, as are all voluntary participants therein.

So what exactly is it you wanted to debate?

PS I like how the Quiverfull site says "The enemy is using human reasoning... (to keep God’s people bound to a worldly mindset)."
Reason is the "enemy", according to Quiverfull. They've chosen to combat it with ignorance, misinformation, and absurdity.

What are they ignorant of? What are they misinformed about?

Frankly, I wouldn't lay odds on their chances of success. ;)

The hand that rocks the cradle(s)...
 
The hand that rocks the cradle(s)...

That would be mine.
Your point...?
 
Back
Top Bottom