1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Quiverfull Families

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by JJ50, Jun 26, 2019.

  1. JJ50

    JJ50 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,795
    Ratings:
    +862
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    The definition of a 'quiverfull family' is:- Quiverfull is a theological position held by some conservative Christian couples belonging to various Christian denominations, that sees children as a blessing from God. It thus encourages procreation, abstaining from all forms of birth control (including natural family planning) and sterilization.

    As you can imagine I think it is crazy for a woman to keep producing children, it isn't good for her health, and could affect the family's bank balance badly. Besides which, how on earth can you provide the love and attention each child has the right to expect, if you have a large number of children? I haven't actually met any 'quiverfull families' and hope there are very few. I have met quite a number of Catholics who have no more than a couple of kids, and I very much doubt they are celibate.

    Are there any posters who believe in the 'quiverfull' dogma?
     
  2. Quintessence

    Quintessence Tale Weaver
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2011
    Messages:
    19,654
    Ratings:
    +12,610
    Religion:
    Druidry
    If anything, I would be described as vehemently anti-breeder. Your children are not a blessing from God when your species is overpopulated and committing planetary-scale ecological genocide. Sorry.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    3,906
    Ratings:
    +2,484
    Religion:
    ?
    I've met families who practiced something along these lines (only ever religious, and for religious reasoning)... at least until they found out how difficult it was to manage even the kids they did end up having. The rationale goes something along the lines of "God will guide and provide." Thinking that no matter how many children they end up having due to just letting things fall-out naturally, they will receive "no more than they can handle" due to God's steering hand. Most I have encountered give it up, however, because, as you stated, it doesn't lend itself to financial stability of the family unit, and the more kids you have, the more personalized attention to them gets worn thin. So they end up using birth control methods (even just watching cycles) or in some cases the husband even gets himself snipped.
     
  4. JJ50

    JJ50 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,795
    Ratings:
    +862
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    If god encourages people to have children, how come some are born to families who abuse them,:eek: surely it should be more selective!
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Rival

    Rival Noachide
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2012
    Messages:
    11,952
    Ratings:
    +12,965
    Religion:
    בת נח
    People can have as many kids as they want. Large families are thing. So what.
     
  6. Saint Frankenstein

    Saint Frankenstein ᛘᛁᛏᚾᛁᚴᚼᛏ᛫ᛋᚢᚾ
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Messages:
    27,908
    Ratings:
    +13,419
    Religion:
    Germanic Folk Revival
    Having kids is a fine thing but these people are sexist loons who treat women like brood mares and have over a dozen children. Very unhealthy, psychologically and physically. The girls' futures are basically stunted because they're not encouraged to get educations and they also homeschool. It's really a destructive cult, actually. Remember the Duggars with their 19 kids? Josh Duggar thought it was okay to molest his sisters. Child sexual abuse is common in those sort of cults because they're authoritarian and opposed to outsiders, cutting off their vulnerable members from sources of help.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    21,098
    Ratings:
    +8,958
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    Would you say the same thing for a bacterial population infecting you or a loved one?

    How is our species any different from any out-of-control infectious agent?
    There are too many of us. We're using too many resources at unsustainable rates. We're draining the life out of the biosphere, and polluting it with toxic by-products. We're on the brink of killing our host.
    Should we really be encouraging large families?

    From a small-picture perspective, too, is it fair to tax everyone else to support huge, welfare-dependent families, just to support someone's religious mandate?
     
  8. JJ50

    JJ50 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,795
    Ratings:
    +862
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Not with the world population expanding to unsustainable proportions.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Rival

    Rival Noachide
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2012
    Messages:
    11,952
    Ratings:
    +12,965
    Religion:
    בת נח
    This is because we insist to keep everyone alive as long as possible. We have done what no other species has and keep people from dying from disease, natural disasters and so on. We allow our disabled from birth to live. We try to save every single human being because we think death is evil. So now we apparently think the best thing is to stop people creating life instead of accepting death in the way nature has traditionally culled population numbers. I will always be of the opinion that one is entitled to as many children as one wants because this is not the problem.
     
    #9 Rival, Jun 27, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2019
    • Useful Useful x 1
  10. JJ50

    JJ50 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,795
    Ratings:
    +862
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    If the population of the world keeps on growing, I wonder if when you are born you get given your due death date?
     
  11. 1213

    1213 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2017
    Messages:
    1,107
    Ratings:
    +163
    Religion:
    Disciple of Jesus
    I don’t think it is bad, if person is loyal to Bible God and knows love. I don’t think there is any problem that people with only two or less kids could also have. I know families that have many children and they seem to be very happy, happier than some kids that are only children in the family.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. JJ50

    JJ50 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,795
    Ratings:
    +862
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Loyalty to the good of this over populated planet is much more important than loyalty to a god which in all probability doesn't exist.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    21,098
    Ratings:
    +8,958
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    Is happiness your only criterion? What about the carbon footprint of a large family vs a small or childless family?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. JJ50

    JJ50 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,795
    Ratings:
    +862
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Good question.
     
  15. 1213

    1213 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2017
    Messages:
    1,107
    Ratings:
    +163
    Religion:
    Disciple of Jesus
    Happiness is not only criterion.

    Childless family can actually have even bigger footprint, it depends on what they do. It is not the number of people that is the problem. Problem can be how people live. If it could be possible for humans to travel to Mars and have self-sustaining artificial environment, it should be easy to do same on earth. Nature is cyclical things and it can be arranged sustainably for much larger group, if wanted. But it seems that those who rule are greedy and want all for them.

    I think the whole “carbon print” scary tactics is scam. Carbon is not a problem. Problem is if we things are not in balance. We can produce even more carbon dioxide, if we take care that there are enough plants to consume it. I think nowadays carbon dioxide is not a problem. For plants this level is quite low and would be better, if it would be even higher. If people try to reduce carbon dioxide, it could lead to famine, when plants don’t grow enough. And actually, it seems that the rulers want that world end ups to famine, where “useless” people die, while they survive at the expense of others. No other good explanation for trying to reduce carbon dioxide.
     
  16. JJ50

    JJ50 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,795
    Ratings:
    +862
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    If we don't try to sort out manmade global warming pdq, the devastation may well cause the extinction of humans on this planet.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    21,098
    Ratings:
    +8,958
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    Of course carbon -- and ecological -- footprint varies with lifestyle, but, as a general rule, ten people will have twice the impact of five.
    Our survival on this planet depends on the planet's complex, interwoven life support system. All the plants, animals, microbes &c. contribute to the system -- except one -- who's largely removed himself from it and has become, in effect, an infectious organism, draining the planet and destroying everything dependent on the cycles of life.

    You're not very well informed on this subject, are you? Those scientists and technicians who do understand the problem, including the military, agree that it's a major threat.

    It's not just atmospheric carbon, either. There's your bauxite (aluminum), forest (wood), Iron ore, petroleum (plastics, fuel) and water (aquifers) footprints, as well. We're polluting the oceans with chemicals and plastics. We're melting ice cover and permafrost -- releasing massive quantities of methane. We're raising sea levels, destroying the wetlands and mangrove swamps that are the nurseries of sealife..
    Have you considered all this?

    Life on Earth depends on biodiversity. Preserving the planet's plants and animals should be mankind's major concern, not the comfort and prosperity of his own species, alone. Without biodiversity we're toast.
     
    #17 Valjean, Jun 29, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  18. JJ50

    JJ50 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Messages:
    1,795
    Ratings:
    +862
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Good post, Valjean.
     
  19. 1213

    1213 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2017
    Messages:
    1,107
    Ratings:
    +163
    Religion:
    Disciple of Jesus
    This planet can only be drained, if we send material to space.

    But I agree, we should not destroy everything. Large population is not the reason for destruction, stupid and evil actions are. Even if we would have only 2 people on earth, they could destroy all.

    I don’t really see any evidence for rising sea levels. But, I think it is true that we should not pollute earth. But that is not about population growth really, it is about that people should understand how to live well, Even if the population would be much less, as some people try to make happen, pollution could be problem, if people don’t understand how to live well.

    I think it is always possible to live in balance with nature, even with greater population.
     
  20. 1213

    1213 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2017
    Messages:
    1,107
    Ratings:
    +163
    Religion:
    Disciple of Jesus
    I don’t believe in “manmade global warming”. However, it is possible that climate has change the whole time earth has existed. I believe it will continue to change, even if humans would not exist. People can’t stop change. But people could learn to live in a way that would be more sustainable. I have actually planned how that could easily work, without taking freedom from people, but it needs some finishing before I can reveal it in larger way.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
Loading...