Would somebody please sterilize these people?

[EastKyFF]

Seventeen kids?? (http://www.kentucky.com/523/story/140792.html)


Some thoughts:

1. On their web site, they describe their guilt over a miscarriage purportedly associated with her use of birth control pills. Clearly they are royally overcompensating.

2. Did it ever occur to them what kind of shape this world would be in if EVERY couple had 17 kids? To me it is the epitome of selfishness to cram that many more children into a world that is royally overpopulated as it is.

3. In time at least one of these kids will probably turn out to be an ax murderer.

4. All they talk about is having more kids. You never hear them say anything about why all of us should have more kids. From that I infer that they think they are the only ones in the world worthy of having such a brood.

5. I wonder how much her health is at risk after 15 pregnancies. This latest was a VBAC--vaginal birth after caesarean. I never heard that before, but I presume that she had enough incision to constitute a full caesarean. Even without it--you mommies and OB's chime in--isn't there considerable risk in having so many? Is this Jim Bob's big virility exhibition, or does she actually want that many kids too?

6. If they are receiving one plug nickel of public assistance, I may go to Arkansas and take away his Cialis.

7. How does she keep getting pregnant? I just have two kids and getting enough privacy for that is a real challenge. How do you manage with 17 kids? You know it just has to make the older ones want to vomit.


I know I sound self-righteous and whatnot, but I can't help it.

[CaptainGonzo]

This reminds me of an eposide of the game show "You Bet Your Life"..

He had a contestant who stated that he had 13 children..

Groucho: "Thirteen Children!"
Contestant: "yes, I love my wife"
Groucho: "I love my cigar, too, but I take it out once in a while...."

In the case that East KYFF posted.. I think it's an evangelical Christian thing.

[frenchfireball]

i also think it is a religious point of view,concerning this family.17 kids,wow!

[RyanEMVFD]

That's too many birthdays to keep up with.

I'm sure they will stop doing c-sections on her and just install a zipper.

[EastKyFF]

I think their motivations are largely religious. My concern is that if that is the reproductive lifestyle they think is God's way--and I have read nothing more specific than "go forth and multiply" in the Bible on this subject--what do they think would happen if everybody complied?

Right now we average 2.5 kids per household in the US, I think. So a few generations would go like this:

Me & the honey
2.5 kids
6.25 grandkids
15.625 great-grandkids
39.0625 great-great grandkids
97.65625 great-great-great grandkids


Mr. & Mrs. Duggar
17 kids
289 grandkids
4,913 great-grandkids
82,521 great-great grandkids
1,419,857 great-great-great grandkids (I bet there aren't that many first names that start with "J")

Some perspective:

-It would take me FIFTEEN GENERATIONS to top what the Duggars would do in FIVE generations.

-If every human being in Idaho dropped dead and the Duggars moved in, it would be fully repopulated in six generations. If every human being in the United States dropped dead except the Duggars, they could repopulate us to 410 million in eight generations.

-Their great-great grandchildren, with boyfriends/girlfriends/spouses, would fill Bristol Motor Speedway to capacity.

[EastKyFF]

That's too many birthdays to keep up with.

I'm sure they will stop doing c-sections on her and just install a zipper.

HAR!! But I think her husband is the one who needs a zipper installed!

[FIREGIRL4EVER]

I really don't see what's wrong with it. I think if they want that many kids and can handle it go for it. If there's no problems medically then I think they should have as many kids as they want. It's awesome their able to handle that many kids and to support their family. I think the Duggar family is awesome. I love watching about their story.

[EastKyFF]

I really don't see what's wrong with it. I think if they want that many kids and can handle it go for it. If there's no problems medically then I think they should have as many kids as they want. It's awesome their able to handle that many kids and to support their family. I think the Duggar family is awesome. I love watching about their story.

Don't get me wrong. I am impressed that they are able to keep up with that many kids, and the kids (despite my ax murderer joke above) seem well-adjusted and are clearly hard-working. If they're doing it without food stamps, etc., it is their business--to some extent.

But one of my rules of thumb for deciding whether or not to do something has always been, "What if everybody did this?"

It's no big deal if only I throw my fast-food trash out the car window, but what if everybody did?

It's no big deal if only I sit out a fire run when I'm tired, but what if everybody did?

And it's no big deal if only the Duggars have 17 kids, but what if everybody did?

[PFDTruck18]

They do recieve items as donations from companies wanting to use them for an advertising campaign

[DeputyMarshal]

To me it is the epitome of selfishness to cram that many more children into a world that is royally overpopulated as it is.

I'll go you one better: To me it is the epitome of selfishness to cram any more children into a world that is royally overpopulated as it is.

Kids aren't an endangered species -- we already have more of them than we know what to do with! There are plenty of kids out there who desperately want parents. Want kids? Adopt! :rolleyes:

[davjohnson]

Congratulations to the Duggars!!!

[ndvfdff33]

Thats frickin wild. If she has anymore kids they are just going to crawl out on their own.:eek:

Congrats to them I guess.

[FlyingKiwi]

10 years from now.

Reporter. "so Mrs Duggar how many in the family now."

Reply "Thirty tw - SPLAT - Thirty Three."

[SamuelFire]

10 years from now.

Reporter. "so Mrs Duggar how many in the family now."

Reply "Thirty tw - SPLAT - Thirty Three."

Now that's funny.

[SapphyreBlues]

Aside from the slip-n-slide comment, I am pretty sure this is her in the delivery room. I mean, after 17 kids, there's bound to be little resistance. :eek:

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/cl/2007/cl070709.gif

[Dickey]

Yeah, it's all cool and warm and fuzzy and puts a smile on your face and is great......until they start living off of the government assistance.

By all means, let it rip until it becomes a problem and you are multiplying outside of your means where you have to ask for assistance from the government like SSI, food stamps, welfare, State assistance programs, etc. Now you're just a burden to everyone else.

Live long and prosper.......to a point.

[FlyingKiwi]

There you go.

Some people just take all of the fun out of the process.

(Just kidding, I think they are twats.)

[DaSharkie]

There can be muscle tone problems with the uterus after a certain number of pregnancies, usually about 8-10. The problem increases if there is less than 6-8 weeks after delivery before the next child is conceived. The uterus, like any other muscle, has to have time to relax and recover from the effects of the pregnancy.

As for VBAC deliveries, if 1 C-Section has been done, the medical literature shows little to no higher risk of complications with VBAC than with a repeat C-Section. And actually, Cesarean deliveries have a much higher risk of complications than vaginal deliveries.

I think these folks seriously like children. They also do not believe in abortion, or likely do not believe in contraception methods.


As for overpopulation - a valid concern, but these children will likely all succeed - the odds are in their favor if you really want to break it down.

Besides, I don't have kids, don't want kids, and don't plan on having them. So someone has to even out the odds right?

[allison20]

What's wrong with 17 kids. Maybe there making up for people like me who have none. And if they can provide a loving home, without going on welfare, then all the power to them. So if they want 20 or 30 kids then who am I to judge weather this is right or wrong. As long as they don't ask me to baby sit the tribe, who cares.

[DeputyMarshal]

As long as they don't ask me to baby sit the tribe, who cares.

What makes you think that you aren't being asked? I don't know what the equivalent proportion is in Arkansas -- granted, it does have one of the poorest educational sytems in the country -- but, around here, about 40% of my property taxes go towards schooling other people's kids. A portion of my state sales taxes provides other people's kids with subsidized health insurance, and a good chunk of my federal income taxes also goes towards schooling and any number of other programs for other people's kids...

Just to add insult to injury, they're also getting a break on their income taxes for having all those kids -- despite the fact that they're costing everyone else money.

You may not be asked to "babaysit" but you and I and everyone else are certainly being asked to subsidize them financially.

Sorry, but having 17 kids is just plain irresponsible and selfish.

[BLSboy]

I think these folks seriously like children. They also do not believe in abortion, or likely do not believe in contraception methods.

Yea? Show me how pulling out is banned in the bible:p :p :cool:

[DeputyMarshal]

Yea? Show me how pulling out is banned in the bible:p :p :cool:

Old Testament stuff -- same "spilling seed on the ground" cites as for masturbation. :D

[SapphyreBlues]

I'm a Christian. Do I believe in birth control? Yes. Why? Well show me exactly where in the bible that is says "Thou shalt not use any form of birth control." You won't find it. So if they are using Christianity as a basis for not using it, then they're a little bit off. I can understand why they're against abortion. But birth control? No.

As long as I don't have to watch any part of the creation, gestation and birth of their children, I don't care how many they have. If they're able to take care of them, fine.

I have to wonder, though...are they wanting the kids because they want them, or because they want attention :confused: That would be an extremely poor excuse to have children. And if they are doing it for self fulfillment, what are they gonna do when nature shuts down her factory? They will be left with this empty hole. And having a breakdown with 17 kids is not an option.

My sister thinks she's addicted to the birthing process. Personally I think they need to get another hobby :rolleyes:

[voyager9]

Right now we average 2.5 kids per household in the US, I think.

According to the World Fact Book (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html) the Total Fertility Rate in the US is estimated at 2.09. The Population Reference Bureau (http://www.prb.org/) breaks it down a little more
The total fertility rate (TFR) or average number of children per woman given current birth rates-- was 2.1 children per woman in 2005. Among racial and ethnic groups, the TFR for highest for Hispanics at 2.9 children per woman, compared with 1.8 for non-Hispanic whites, 2.0 for non-Hispanic blacks, 1.9 for Asian and Pacific Islanders, and 1.7 for American Indians and Alaska Natives.

In 2007 the estimated TFR for the world will be 2.59 with a lot of the developing countries remaining above 3+.

[voyager9]

Regarding the TFR:
In general terms, a two-child per woman average is considered replacement level—the fertility level at which each couple is replaced in the population by their own children, yielding zero population growth. It must slightly above 2 to account for mortality.

In more specific terms, maintaining replacement-level fertility requires that each couple produce a daughter who lives long enough to have her own children. The average number of children per couple, then, must be above two to account for the fact that not all children will survive through their childbearing ages. In addition, because 105 boys are born for every 100 girls, an exact 2-child average would not produce quite enough daughters. In the United States, replacement level is about 2.06 (usually rounded to 2.1). In a higher mortality country, replacement-level fertility would be higher – above 3.0 in some countries-- because so more children die before reaching their childbearing ages.

[ThNozzleman]

Well show me exactly where in the bible that is says "Thou shalt not use any form of birth control."
I don't know...your god has killed a man for pulling out before, instead of knocking up his sister-in-law like he was ordered to do. In "his" eyes, it was eeeeeevil.

[SapphyreBlues]

That was one specific case. And was a direct commandment from God for that man to get her pregnant. And it was in the Old Testament. I'm sure that a whole lot of others did it, but God had a reason for this one time.

Show me, more specifically though, in the New Testament, where it says anything about birth control. And other than that one time, you won't find it in the OT either.

You'll find (well I'm sure you already have), that a lot of people do things in the name of Christianity that isn't biblical. I'm not saying what they are doing is wrong. I am saying, though, that if they keep having kids because God said they couldn't use birth control, then that's not true.

[ThNozzleman]

Show me, more specifically though, in the New Testament, where it says anything about birth control. And other than that one time, you won't find it in the OT either.
He exercised free will and a form of birth control. Your "god" killed him for it. What does the NT have to do with it? Isn't it the same unchanging, merciful "god" as in the OT? :confused:
I'm sure that a whole lot of others did it, but God had a reason for this one time.

Yeah...it pissed him off.

[SapphyreBlues]

Yeah, God is still God. He's given us His commandments in the bible. And that's what I'm getting at. There isn't a commandment against birth control.

What miffed God off at that guy wasn't as much the pulling out. It was the fact that he didn't get his sis-in-law pregnant like he was told to. So it was for disobedience that he was killed.

You won't find anything in the Old Testament laws about birth control. You will just find this one instance where God punished a man for disobedience. Did God punish some man and woman down the street for pulling out? No. Why? Because there wasn't a commandment against it. Did He punish that guy? Yes. Why? because he was told to get her pregnant and didn't.

The punishment wasn't for the form of birth control. It was for not getting her pregnant, like I said. It was the act of disobedience that ticked God off.

As for the reason as to why he had to get her pregnant, I'll have to read it again. I'm sorry that I don't know it right off.

[coldfront]

What makes you think that you aren't being asked? I don't know what the equivalent proportion is in Arkansas -- granted, it does have one of the poorest educational sytems in the country -- but, around here, about 40% of my property taxes go towards schooling other people's kids. A portion of my state sales taxes provides other people's kids with subsidized health insurance, and a good chunk of my federal income taxes also goes towards schooling and any number of other programs for other people's kids...

Just to add insult to injury, they're also getting a break on their income taxes for having all those kids -- despite the fact that they're costing everyone else money.

You may not be asked to "babaysit" but you and I and everyone else are certainly being asked to subsidize them financially.

Sorry, but having 17 kids is just plain irresponsible and selfish.

Large Families Complain of Bias


By JONATHAN RABINOVITZ,

Based on the newspaper ad, the three-bedroom house here sounded like the perfect place for Maureen Fairclough to raise her family. It was in a good school district, on a safe block with little traffic and rented for $150 less than she was paying.

It never occurred to her that the agent might refuse to rent to her and her husband because they had four children.

"This one man was very nasty," Mrs. Fairclough, 25, said. "He told me, 'What kind of people would have four children in this day and age?' He said that the landlord didn't want more than two children in the house and that it would be very difficult for me to find a house for four kids." Lawsuit Is Filed

Fair-housing advocates say that discrimination against families with children is common on Long Island, and on Wednesday, Long Island Housing Services filed suit against one of the Island's largest landlords, Holiday Management Associates, accusing it of "knowingly and intentionally" discriminating against families with children, a charge the company denies.

For their part, landlords say the issue is complex. They say they must be allowed to limit the number of residents in small apartments, both to protect their property and out of consideration for other tenants. They also say the law that protects families is ambiguous.

"The concern among professional property managers is that while you can't discriminate against families with children, it certainly is lawful to have reasonable occupancy standards," said Laurene Janik, general counsel of the National Association of Realtors. "The question is what is reasonable and the law doesn't say." Bias Barred in 1988

The Federal Government barred discrimination against tenants because of familial status in 1988, and since then the Department of Housing and Urban Development has received 8,545 complaints. The department said 163 of those complaints were from New York State, with settlements totaling $760,216. There were 28 complaints in 1989, 40 in 1990, 50 in 1991, 32 in 1992 and 12 so far in 1993.

Fair housing groups expected the complaints to decline after the first few years, but they say that nationally they show no sign of falling off. Move Made Sense

Mrs. Fairclough talked about her own experience while rocking her youngest child, Kimberly, 1, in her arms, and watching the other three -- Daniel, 8, Kenneth 4, and Tori, 2 -- race in and out of the house.

Mrs. Fairclough sells Tupperware and her husband, Warren, 31, is a mold maker for a company that produces pewter statuettes. Last year, they thought it made sense to move from the house they rent here for $1,150 to something less expensive.

Mrs. Fairclough said that when she learned about the other house in a nearby neighborhood, advertised for $1,000 and handled by Worth Realty in Uniondale, she thought she had solved their problems. Encouragement at First

At first, the broker on the phone was encouraging, she said. He took down her name, address and other basic information. Then, he asked about her children.

"I told him six would be living there, and he put me on hold," she said. When he returned, he said the house had been rented. After Mrs. Fairclough pressed him, she said, he admitted that the landlord did not want to rent it to a family with more than two children.

"I was furious," she said. "It felt like I had to justify my decision to have children."

The next day investigators for Long Island Housing Services confirmed Mrs. Fairclough's story. With their findings, she filed a grievance with H.U.D., and now, impatient with the time it has taken to process the case, she has hired a lawyer, David W. Denenberg.

Officials at Worth Realty did not respond to requests for interviews. Joe Mowad, the broker who spoke with Mrs. Fairclough, no longer works there and could not be reached for comment.

In an interview last year with a Long Island television station, News 12, Mr. Mowad said: "Maybe the law is there but it is certainly not lived up to by anybody. All of a sudden they pick one out and it happens to be me."

The End!

Who going to set the magic number for childbirth!One ,Four or should it be six.If you take care of seventeen great!If a parent can't feed and care for one shame on you!We should not pass judgement on this family!Sorry, you can just be plain irresponsible and selfish with one as seventeen!

LIVE AND LET LIVE!PLUS PAY YOUR TAXES!

[SapphyreBlues]

I don't have a problem with people having kids. I do have a problem with having them, then mistreating them. If they're taking care of them, fine. I just hope that they're having them because they want to, and not for the national attention. I also have a problem with people having loads of kids just to draw welfare.

[ThNozzleman]

Yes. Why? because he was told to get her pregnant and didn't.
So, your "god" did kill a man for using birth control...right?

[coldfront]

So, your "god" did kill a man for using birth control...right?

No the sisters did it! Your just confused!

[ThNozzleman]

So much for getting some sleep tonight! :p

[SapphyreBlues]

So, your "god" did kill a man for using birth control...right?

Not exactly. If he had been with any other woman and did that, God couldn't have cared less. But he wasn't. He was with the woman that God told him to be with. And instead of getting her pregnant like he was told, he didn't. That's what got him killed. So, see it wasn't the birth control in itself that got him aced. It was his disobedience. God has Nothing against birth control. As a matter of fact, I'm sure He looks down and sees certain people and is glad that He gave mankind knowledge about it :eek:

I'm hoping this is making sense.

[MarcusKspn]

I don't have a problem with people having kids. I do have a problem with having them, then mistreating them. If they're taking care of them, fine. I just hope that they're having them because they want to, and not for the national attention. I also have a problem with people having loads of kids just to draw welfare.

I watched on of the specials about when they were building the house they live in. One of the other things they believe in is that God commands you "not to be a slave to a lender". They are completely debt free, if the cannot afford something, they will not get it. I know lots of people on the "welfare kids" train, but those guys are not one of them. It is pretty impressive how they handle their finances.

[DaSharkie]

I'm hoping this is making sense.


Don't waste your time with Noz. He thinks anyone who has any religious belief is a lunatic. He is a self avowed expert in religion apparently as well.

You won't change his mind and he won't change your mind.

[allison20]

What makes you think that you aren't being asked? I don't know what the equivalent proportion is in Arkansas -- granted, it does have one of the poorest educational sytems in the country -- but, around here, about 40% of my property taxes go towards schooling other people's kids. A portion of my state sales taxes provides other people's kids with subsidized health insurance, and a good chunk of my federal income taxes also goes towards schooling and any number of other programs for other people's kids...

Just to add insult to injury, they're also getting a break on their income taxes for having all those kids -- despite the fact that they're costing everyone else money.

You may not be asked to "babaysit" but you and I and everyone else are certainly being asked to subsidize them financially.

Sorry, but having 17 kids is just plain irresponsible and selfish.

Actually, they home school there kids.

[randsc]

17 more workers to help prop up our social security program.

The fact is that the US (and much of the developed world, and even significant parts of the developing world) have a massive demographic crisis brewing.

When Social Security was first istituted, there were nearly six workers for every pensioner in this country. Now there are two. Soon, there will be maybe one.

These 17 kids will repay the cost of their schooling many, many times. Unless this family is very unlucky, they will have provided a net benefit to their society.

These kids are clean, healthy, well-kept, are being educated and are beng raised by both parents, and with solid values. How often do you all see people, in the course of your firefighting duties, who don't do nearly as much for their kids?

[CaptainGonzo]

What miffed God off at that guy wasn't as much the pulling out. It was the fact that he didn't get his sis-in-law pregnant like he was told to. So it was for disobedience that he was killed.

So.. God condoned adultery and offed the poor SOB for non performance???

[SapphyreBlues]

So.. God condoned adultery and offed the poor SOB for non performance???

No. Her husband was dead. And in the Old Testament if the guy had a living brother, he was to marry his widow, and the two of them were to have children, in honor of him. He didn't do it, thus breaking that commandment.

All I can say is thank God we don't live in Old Testament times. But of course, not being Jewish, this wouldn't apply to me anyways :D

[SapphyreBlues]

I watched on of the specials about when they were building the house they live in. One of the other things they believe in is that God commands you "not to be a slave to a lender". They are completely debt free, if the cannot afford something, they will not get it. I know lots of people on the "welfare kids" train, but those guys are not one of them. It is pretty impressive how they handle their finances.

I am aware that the bible says to "owe no man anything". Perhaps that is where they got that. Which is actually a good practice. But, what if it's something they really need? Especially if it's for their children? Would they still get it? I would hope so... Anyways, it's good that they aren't milking the welfare cow. I know some women that do that...and it makes me mad :mad:

[emt161]

You may not be asked to "babaysit" but you and I and everyone else are certainly being asked to subsidize them financially.

Sorry, but having 17 kids is just plain irresponsible and selfish.

WTF do you care? They're obviously well within their financial means. They're paying taxes but not using nearly the services that they're paying for- every one of those kids is homeschooled, a fact that I consider central to their excellent development so far. I think public schools would have absolutely destroyed these kids and the family in general.

You're not subsidizing crap. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the property taxes they're paying on a huge house like that would be subsidizing YOU if you lived there.

Get off your high horse. The Duggers aren't hurting anybody- in fact, I think they're going to contribute 17 excellent, productive citizens.

Certainly more valuable to society than whiny internet bulletin board posters who think they know what's best for other people.

[EastKyFF]

A few thoughts as I step back into the fray...

1. Those of you fussing about paying school taxes when you have no children are missing a key point, that your life is improved when other people's children are educated. Better schools result in kids less likely to commit crimes, more likely to live without public assistance, and much more. So it's an investment that benefits even childless taxpayers.

2. Again, despite my ax murderer joke, I do agree that these kids seem very kind, bright, and hard-working.

3. I don't think the issue here is so much whether they are following biblical instructions to the letter as whether that obedience would, if followed by a lot more people, spur an excessive growth of population.

4. I do agree with the excellent point that we have an inverted age distribution, i.e., too many old retirees to be funded by the working-age people we have.

5. Finally, I also worry that these people are hooked on the attention they receive. Who else would emerge from the delivery of her 17th child and immediately say, "I'd like to have another!"?

[Kiltedfirepiper]

I cant remember which Monty Python movie it was ...maybe "the life of brian?"

the scene opens with aboput 30 or 40 kids in a house
the woman is washing plates, and a baby falls out from between her legs...

" oh dear could you pick that up for me?"


its been awhile since I've seen it..


everybody sing with me

" every sperm is sacred....every sperm is great!!"

[DeputyMarshal]

I cant remember which Monty Python movie it was ...maybe "the life of brian?"

Close, it was The Meaning of Life (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085959/)

"Birth. The third world... Yorkshire." :D

(And don't forget the very expensive machine that goes, "Ping!")

[Hazmat91180]

Another thing to take into consideration is that this guy is a politician with a very STRONG record against abortion, (fine, whatever). but as far as money they are self proclaimed wealthy as they invested heavily in the "get out of debt program" and they have seminars are their house. Thy also do industrial and real estate investments. I think $$ wise they are doing ok. and with home school thing about the money they are saving there as well.


In any event I am worried about handling (1) let alone (17).

[DaSharkie]

HazMat - I love that avatar man.

[JHR1985]

I was gonna say... after like 17 kids... A: there would be no need to push. The babies would just explode out... and

B: After 17 kids, would it not be like throwing a hot dog down a long hallway? Lets see if anyone gets that one:eek:

[SapphyreBlues]

I'm sure someone will give a better reply to that second part... all you're getting from me is :eek: :eek: :eek:

As for the first part...

You're probably right. I tell you one thing, I'd hate to be standing in front of her when she goes into labor. One good push and you'd be cannon blasted upside your head by the baby.

[ThNozzleman]

I'm hoping this is making sense.
No, it's not making any sense.
No. Her husband was dead. And in the Old Testament if the guy had a living brother, he was to marry his widow, and the two of them were to have children, in honor of him. He didn't do it, thus breaking that commandment.
Oh, wait; now it makes perfect sense. Bang your sister-in-law...or die. How did I miss the logic in that?? :p

[SapphyreBlues]

I am very sure that not everyone who didn't marry his sister-in-law died. However this case was unique.

Sorry that I'm not making sense to you. I have broken it down as far as I possibly can. I've told you about the commandment behind it, and that this was a one time thing. So, I don't know what else to tell you. :D I am Pretty sure it has something to do with a difference in our beliefs. Could quite possibly be just that :D

So I tell you what...I've said my part, you've said yours, and we kept it civil. There's nothing more I can say about it. I see things through faith, and Biblically, and you... ... don't. While I wish I could sway your opinions, those are yours and this is America. It's your first amendment right.

As for what you said about "logic", don't ask me :) God had His reasons. I wasn't around back then. And I'm not Jewish. Perhaps if I got real deep into studying the Old Testament, I could give you a better answer. And really, I'm sorry I can't. See, I'm living in the New Testment - which is the "salvation by grace through faith" era, and not under the "law" of the Old. So I doubt I'll ever get into it like that.

I don't expect you to understand what I just wrote in the above paragraph. But if you wanna know what it means, all you have to do is ask. :)

[Tooanfrom]

I was gonna say... after like 17 kids... A: there would be no need to push. The babies would just explode out... and

B: After 17 kids, would it not be like throwing a hot dog down a long hallway? Lets see if anyone gets that one:eek:

Or as us Londoners would say "Like throwing a banana up Regent Street"

Mind you if ever they decide to take "precautions" he could always tie his feet to a Land Rover(or in your country a Humvee):D

[Bones42]

See, I'm living in the New Testment - which is the "salvation by grace through faith" era, and not under the "law" of the Old. So I doubt I'll ever get into it like that.
Ah, so at some point, someone decided to re-write the teachings of God? Why would that be?

[hwoods]

Ah, so at some point, someone decided to re-write the teachings of God? Why would that be?

One DOES have to keep up with the times.................. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[MarcusKspn]

I cant remember which Monty Python movie it was ...maybe "the life of brian?"

the scene opens with aboput 30 or 40 kids in a house
the woman is washing plates, and a baby falls out from between her legs...

" oh dear could you pick that up for me?"


its been awhile since I've seen it..


everybody sing with me

" every sperm is sacred....every sperm is great!!"

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U0kJHQpvgB8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U0kJHQpvgB8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

One of the best musical scenes ever.....

[SapphyreBlues]

Ah, so at some point, someone decided to re-write the teachings of God? Why would that be?

What I said in what you quoted didn't have anything to do with someone rewriting the teachings of God. There was the OT law, and people lived under that for centuries. Then after the coming of Christ, that brought about the NT, which is what we are living in today. Well those that believe it.

Why the NT now instead of the OT? Because after Christ came, He fulfilled the old laws, and brought about living under grace instead.

So it's not like somebody sat down and just rewrote the whole thing.

I guess this is what you were getting at anyways :)

But, yeah, there are those that do twist things about it terribly. They come up with their own version of things just to suit themselves. That's why you have people who say they're Christians, yet will do you worse than anybody you've ever encountered. Ok, for example....tv televangelists. They tell people to "send us your money and you'll be healed of your diseases!" Then poor people and those that are sick and desperate will send in their money. But, if they could heal people, why aren't they in the hospitals raising everyone up? So see, it can be twisted, and used maliciously.

Harve said one would have to keep up with the times...unfortunately these are the times we're living in. A lot of those groups are out for personal gain, no matter what cost it is to someone else. Now where's the Christianity in that?

Anyways if anybody wants to discuss it further, feel free to pm me. :) I don't wanna take any chances with someone starting something that could get this thread closed. Nobody here has said anything. But y'all know what I mean. Somebody could come along, and some people can't be civil at all :rolleyes:

**edited to add...**

I had a religious-themed thread on a different board that was up for over 16 months. And for anyone that's ever been on a message board knows that is a long time for a thread of that nature. Anyways, no one was offended. Nobody reported it for being up. People there thought that just because they didn't agree with or like religion, didn't give them any reason to be a troll and go into a thread just to stir up trouble. I mean, of course there were discussions and disagreements, but that was typical of all threads. The disagreements were kept civil, and there was no bashing type posts. But one day, after 16 months, someone just had to be a child about it, and went off the deep end. This person of no faith, simply went off on those that did. Well it caused the thread to not only get locked, but deleted. And it wasn't like a 12 post thread - it was several pages long. Could the mods simply have deleted the flaming posts? Yeah, but didn't because the one that was causing the problems, was a "well liked" member of that board. :rolleyes:

And with this not being my thread, and seeing how this part of it is pretty off topic anyways, I don't want to take any chances with it.