Support or debate???

[Katydid]

OK, I really have to ask. Is this forum for support in making the decision and in believing in the idea of Quiverfull, or is this a forum to debate the validity of Quiverfull. I am asking because I am looking for support in our life, the life we believe God gave us the desire to live. Yet, I see debate occuring.

I am NOT trying to judge, if this forum is a place to debate, then I will simply search for another forum to take part in.

 

[ACADEMIC]

Why does this have to be a stark either/or thing? Can't there be threads where questions are asked, and others where the mertis of QF theology are debated?

And in threads where questions are asked, isn't it a very wise thing to hear a range of Christian viewpoints before making up our minds?

----------------------------------------------------------

 

[HeyHomie]

I know that over in the Childfree sub-forum, we get pretty upset when people try to debate with us, to the point where our moderator deletes their posts and contacts them.

For my money, sub-forums like Childfree, Quiverfull, Remarried, etc. should be for support and not for debate. But that's just MHO.

 

[Katydid]

Why does this have to be a stark either/or thing? Can't there be threads where questions are asked, and others where the mertis of QF theology are debated?

And in threads where questions are asked, isn't it a very wise thing to hear a range of Christian viewpoints before making up our minds?

----------------------------------------------------------

Why did you answer my question with a question? See, that is the first sign of a debater. Sorry, but I grew up with someone who loved to debate.


OK, now to answer your question...

I don't mind a good debate, BUT, when I go somewhere for support, I don't want to worry that my post will be overrun by opposing views and people trying to talk me out of my convictions. Regardless of your conviction, there will be times when you feel weak. If this forum is open to debates, then there are those who will take advantage of that to try and convince you that you are wrong. A support forum should not allow this.

Secondly, as far as those asking questions, to question a general concept, in my opinion should be in an open forum such as the general parenting forum. While if you are truthfully wanting a quiverfull opinion, you should go to the specific forum realizing that you WILL get the opinions of those in that mindset.


For instance, in the messianic forum, honest questions from non-MJ's can be asked, but not debated. Debating by non-MJ's is not allowed.

So, why can't those who are not quiverfull, refrain from debating in the quiverfull forum?

 

[Katakalupto]

It was set up to be a place where we could go to get support, however some seem set upon disrupting our fellowship here.

But essentially yes it is for support.

 

[ACADEMIC]

Why did you answer my question with a question? See, that is the first sign of a debater. Sorry, but I grew up with someone who loved to debate.

OK, now to answer your question...

I don't mind a good debate, BUT, when I go somewhere for support, I don't want to worry that my post will be overrun by opposing views and people trying to talk me out of my convictions. Regardless of your conviction, there will be times when you feel weak. If this forum is open to debates, then there are those who will take advantage of that to try and convince you that you are wrong. A support forum should not allow this.

Secondly, as far as those asking questions, to question a general concept, in my opinion should be in an open forum such as the general parenting forum. While if you are truthfully wanting a quiverfull opinion, you should go to the specific forum realizing that you WILL get the opinions of those in that mindset.


For instance, in the messianic forum, honest questions from non-MJ's can be asked, but not debated. Debating by non-MJ's is not allowed.

So, why can't those who are not quiverfull, refrain from debating in the quiverfull forum?

Answering a question with a question is a way of clarifying and expanding the issues and encouraging people to open and make up their own minds. In short, it is a way of teaching, something I myself do in a classroom on a usual basis. Check out Job 40:6 - 41:34 sometime. God used the method.

Now on to the topic.

How would limiting the range of replies work with the recent post in this Forum titled Trusting God with Number of Children?

The original poster's question was not just about "General Parenting." The question made specific Quiverfull assumptions.

To both of you: is it fair, even truthful, to the original poster of that topic to limit the range of replies she receives to only those who subscribe fully to QF views?

Can't we trust people to hear a range of Christian viewpoints and make up their own minds?

I am myself terribly, terribly, terribly fearful of being part of any group that systematically roots out alternative voices.

In governments, rooting out alternative voices is the mode of China, North Korea, Cuba, and mid-East countries. They tightly control and sanitize information so citizens only hear "approved" and agreeing views.

In religion, rooting out alternative voices is the mode of cults. Such voices must be disallowed lest followers have something with which to compare their controlled experiences or the "approved" view. So only approved and agreeing voices are allowed to speak.

In the QF world, rooting out alternative voices is the mode of The Quiverfull Digest, to name only the one with the widest readership. That is roughly analogous to Jehovah's Wittnesses who read the official Watchtower magazine, which is completely screened to ensure it upholds and propogates only Wathctower doctrine. Some readers later use the term "brainswashed" to describe the information they receive. Yes, from the QF digest.

Again, can't we trust people to hear a range of Christian viewpoints and make up their own minds?

Irrespective of the domain, whenever a group eliminates caring alternative voices, the result is a false, manipulatively constructed version of the subject. Whenever that happens, one can be sure that someone somewhere for some reason is wanting to control what you think; and the only way to do that is to control the information you receive on a subject within a subject-dedicated group.

Check out Proverbs 10:17, 12:1, 13:8, 15:10, 15:31-32.

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

I am myself strongly, strongly, strongly supportive of Christians who choose to have or are seeking to have very large, medium, small, or child-free families. It is QF theology and the ways in which it is extra-Biblically bound upon the consciences of some women that I will sometimes take issue with.

I am myself terribly, terribly, terribly fearful of being part of any group that systematically roots out caring alternative voices. In fact, I run away from such groups as fast as I can. I think every Christian should too.

-----------------------------------

 

[oliveplants]

I also think this forum should be for support rather than debate. I have asked the mods to consider this idea.

 

[Katydid]

Let me ask you (teach you I guess as you would put it, which by the way, I am very educated in this area of my life and don't appreciate being talked down to)...

How would limiting the range of replies work with the recent post in this Forum titled Trusting God with Number of Children?

I really think this is a bad remark for the OP of that thread. You are assuming that she can't think for herself and needs it all laid out in one neat package, or at least your view. Now for the answer tto your question...

It works the same way as if I go into the Eastern Orthodox forum and ask a question. I may not agree with the answer, but I have to consider the fact that I am asking people who believe in that religion. I cannot debate those answers. It is not allowed, so does this statement apply to them as well? Or for that matter any of the denominational forums? How aboout the Christians Only section of CF, I mean we are blocking out any non-Christian points of view, does this statement apply to that too?

I am myself terribly, terribly, terribly fearful of being part of any group that systematically roots out alternative voices.

In religion, rooting out alternative voices is the mode of cults. Such voices must be disallowed lest followers have something with which to compare their controlled experiences or the "approved" view. So only approved and agreeing voices are allowed to speak.

Once again, I ask, why are you at CF, I mean, the Christians Only section, if by your own definition, is a mode of a cult. Because it doesn't allow alternative voices (those of athiests, buddists etc). According to this statement all of the Christians only section should be open for debate with EVERYONE!! Or it is becoming a cult.

In the QF world, rooting out alternative voices is the mode of The Quiverfull Digest, to name only the one with the widest readership. That is roughly analogous to Jehovah's Wittnesses who read the official Watchtower magazine. Some readers later use the term "brainswashed" to describe the information they received. Yes, of the QF digest.

Now this is the true root of your argument. See, it isn't that you believe ALL sections should allow debate. You feel that the ideas behind Quiverfull are wrong, therefore you want to make it your mission to disprove what we believe. You want to come into this forum and "straighten us out" for a lack of better words. You feel we are brainwashed and have been led astray.

Wow, well, being a MJ that isn't the first time I have heard that argument, and yet you still aren't allowed into the MJ forum to debate with me. So why don't those same rules apply here? Why are you so determined to prove that your position is correct? Am I hurting you? What is your true purpose here? Is it to make sure that noone else gets "led astray" in your opinion, to the "other side"? YOU are the one assuming that Christians can't make up their own minds. YOU are the one assuming that you must protect them from all of us big bad family loving folks.

Irrespective of the domain, whenever a group eliminates caring alternative voices, the result is a false, manipulatively constructed version of the subject. Whenever that happens, one can be sure that someone somewhere for some reason is wanting to control what you think; and the only way to do that is to control the information you receive on a subject within a subject-dedicated group.

Once again, you are describing what Christian forums is all about. The Christians only section doesn't allow caring buddists to come in and debate with us.


Look, if you want to write out your thesis on why Quiverfull is of Satan or whatever you believe, then feel free. I will even as them to make it a sticky at the top

Academics views on the faulty theology behind this forum

that way, you know that everyone knows what you think. Then you could let us get on with supporting each other instead of spending all our time defending ourselves to you.

 

[ACADEMIC]

Wow, you have egregiously twisted and distorted my words and views in an apparent attempt at Point of View Pushing. From textbook definition of:

"The reason they do this is probably that they believe that a neutral presentation of the views they advocate will look bad in comparison to opposing views. And the best way to win an argument is to prevent the other side from getting any time to make its argument. Failing that, the goal may just be to make the other side look bad ad hominen or to distort that side's views." (underline added)

And you may have missed the part of my post where I said I am myself strongly, strongly, strongly supportive of Christians who choose to have very large families.

 

[Katydid]

And you may have missed the part of my post where I said I am myself strongly, strongly, strongly supportive of Christians who choose to have very large families.

No, I didn't miss that part. But, I did catch the part where you are truly against those who attach themselves to the quiverfull idea.

I did not twist what you said, you said that this place would be a mode of a cult if we didn't allow differing viewpoints. That was the main point of your post. Well, my point is that if it is a SUPPORT forum for those who believe in the same concept, then there is no reason to allow debate.

Think of a game of tag. We have all played tag. Kids love the game (at least mine do). Well think of all these forums and the internet being a giant game of tag, and the Quiverfull forum as being base. That is what I am looking for a home base, a place where I can rest, recouperate and get my bearings before running around again defending my large family.

I have to defend our point of view to family, friends, strangers, even the lady at the grocery store. I was looking for a "base" to recharge at with like-minded people. Not a place where I can live and cut out the rest of the world. I deal with the opposing view every day that I leave my house, every phone call with family and friends. I was hoping that a forum, a support forum would allow me to kick my feet up and socialize with some like minded individuals.

Apparently, in your opinion, that is asking too much.

 

[ACADEMIC]

No one has to defend their large family to me. I have already said I strongly support couples who choose to have large families. What I reject are the QF ideas of Providential Conception, immediate divine creation, and universalizing the Genesis and post-Noahic flood reproductive statements as binding upon all married Christians.

By the recent poll here, it appears that the majority here attach themselves to the QF idea only because they choose to have (or try to have) a large family, not because of its above doctrinal distinctives. If this Forum wishes to lay down a rule that one must adhere to all of QF's main distinctives to post, I think it would be a very quiet Forum indeed.

 

[Katydid]

I don't think that you need to adhere to all the standards to take part in the forum. But, I believe that debating should be done in a thread marked for debating. Inviting a debate. I do happen to believe that birth control is a sin. I do happen to believe that all life is created by God. I also believe that I should be allowed to fellowship with others who hold like minded ideals without constantly feeling the need to defend them.

 

[Katakalupto]

I don't think that you need to adhere to all the standards to take part in the forum. But, I believe that debating should be done in a thread marked for debating. Inviting a debate. I do happen to believe that birth control is a sin. I do happen to believe that all life is created by God. I also believe that I should be allowed to fellowship with others who hold like minded ideals without constantly feeling the need to defend them.

 

[ACADEMIC]

Out of 19 voters in the recent poll, only 4 voted "all birth control is wrong sinful." 2 of those 4 were Katydid and Workinprogress.

Given that you two are in a 4:1 minority, it is very unreasonable to think that other users are never going to disagree with your minority views or express contrary views. They have already expressed so!

It appears to me you two are trying to engage in point of view pushing to be able to express your views in a homogenous context where no one disagrees, or failing that, to distort the person's views.

If this Forum is going to have a more restricted definition of what QF is - Providential conception, the Genesis reproductive passages as binding and birth control use as disobedience - then that needs to be explicitly stated. Then the four of you can continue on while the majority are restricted out.

I strongly support Christian couples who choose to have large families. As the Forum is now, that gives me just as much right to express my views here as you have.

 

[oliveplants]

I strongly support Christian couples who choose to have large families. That gives me just as much right to express my views here as you have.

But you also strongly support Christian couples who choose to have small or no family, by your own words.

AND, by your prior conduct, you rather support the small family STRONGER than you support the large family. Else, why do have to tell every single poster how it is wrong to be quiverfull? (I know. Because you refuse to open your definition of QF to anything other than what you read on wikipedia, regardless of the testimonies given here.)

Why not go on over to the Word of Faith forum and 'splain things to them for a while? I'd rather not put you on ignore because I like you in the Anabaptist forum...

 

[Katydid]

But you also strongly support Christian couples who choose to have small or no family, by your own words.

AND, by your prior conduct, you rather support the small family STRONGER than you support the large family. Else, why do have to tell every single poster how it is wrong to be quiverfull? (I know. Because you refuse to open your definition of QF to anything other than what you read on wikipedia, regardless of the testimonies given here.)

I completely agree, especially with your last paragraph.


Academic, for someone so opposed to Quiverfull (which you have made clear) the only reason to be here for you, is to cause problems, debates. You have made it clear that you are not here to learn, but to "teach".

 

[ACADEMIC]

oliveplants, I have frankly been very surprised to learn how much the majority here DOES NOT adhere to the main tenants of QF, as that is taught by the majority of QF authors and personalities within the movement such as Pride, Hess and Hess, Provan, DeMoss, and Scott. I have never seen such disagreement until recently.

I am still formulating what to think of it. I suspect it is people who adopt the Quiverfull label without understanding what it means, in so far as the term is used within the movement.

But there is nothing to say that people cannot co-opt the label from the movement to mean only an idea surrounding having large families, while not adhereing to its distinctives such Providential conception, etc. That appears to be what is going on here, I think.

I support neither larger, medium-sized, small, nor childfree familes more strongly. I believe they are all Biblically legitimate options for Christian couples. I beleive people go out of Biblical bounds to make one position or the other THE Biblical position.

There is a huge difference between a couple who chooses to take as many measures as possible to maximize their fertility, and a couple who has had their consciences bound by false teaching stating that the Bible says they MUST NOT take measures to control fertility. From there, I wholly agree with John MacArthur,

Nothing in Scripture prohibits married couples from practicing birth control, either for a limited time to delay childbearing, or permanently when they have borne children and determine that their family is complete ... In our viewpoint, birth control is biblically permissible. At the same time, couples should not practice birth control if it violates their consciences (Romans 14:23)--not because birth control is inherently sinful, but because it is always wrong to violate the conscience. The answer to a wrongly informed conscience is not to violate it, but rather to correct and rightly inform one's conscience with biblical truth. (From http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/birthcontrol.htm)​

That is what I sought to do here. I hate to think that some people are afraid of such a thing.

--------------

 

[JulySheMustFly]

Skipping over all the other stuff, I thought this was a place of support.

 

[ACADEMIC]

It is just that some people's idea of support apparently equates to no range of viewpoints allowed, stringent and continual conflict avoidance.

--------------------------------------

 

[oliveplants]

majority here DOES NOT adhere to the main tenants of QF, as that is taught by the majority of QF authors and personalities within the movement such as Pride, Hess and Hess, Provan, DeMoss, and Scott.

I am wondering why this is... For myself, I arrived at my belief system from Bible study, which is also where I got the term "quiverfull." I knew a couple of people who didn't use BC, but one of them was constatnly praying for "no more," which to me goes against the spirit of the thing. I've never been to a church that preached QF, never read a book on it. I have seen a few websites and heard references to the idea in passing. I'd skimmed through DeMoss's book "Lies Women Believe" and liked it a LOT better than another book that came out about the same time "Lies the Church has Told Women."
My point, my point. Ah, yes! I didn't know I was part of a "movement," I didn't get here by indoctrination or brainwashing, I'd never heard of most of the authors mentioned. This seems to be the way others got here, too. Perhaps that explains why we aren't all in agreement with these self-appointed experts in the field - we didn't elect them. KWIM?

So, I hope that helps on that point.

But (again, "I think" and this doesn't necessarily express the views of anyone else) more to the point of this thread...

I am not Catholic, never have been, never will be. I respect those who are, and support them in their Christian walk. I have some notions about Catholic doctrine being in error. I will NOT go in the Catholic forum and post on every thread about how wrong they are, based on my preconcieved notions. I may pop in every now and then to ask about what they REALLY believe, or even just to read quietly to see what is being said. I may learn something, I may just get mad. And at the end of the day I might talk it over with my DH. But I won't debate with them or try to convert them. I won't even start a thread in general theology titled "Why Catholicism is wrong," though that would be allowed in CF; I just don't think it would accomplish anything. If someone started a thread asking why Protestants don' do XYZ that Catholics do (or whatever) then I would feel free to answer as politely as possible.
Do you see the parallel here? There's just a HUGE difference between going into someone's fellowship area and blasting it all to pieces, and opening dialog in a nuetral place.