Unionist schreef:Maybe God gave us the brains to use. I know many many people who have a lot of children and can't handle. Was that God's mistake of their own?

Good question, Unio.

I don't think that WE have to decide what might be good for us. There's so much (on the basis of own experience), that we think we can't handle... Well God will give us the powers to handle! He will give the shoulders to carry the burden. We are not allowed to decide what we can handle, en what we can't handle.

If a docter or psychiatrist gives the advice not to have children at this moment, wether the reason is physical, or wether it is because the use of medicins, I don't think it is Gods will for us to have children at that moment. Nowhere in Scripture I read that God asks of us to risk our life, or the life of our (unborn) child.

Maybe God gave us the brains to use. I know many many people who have a lot of children and can't handle. Was that God's mistake of their own?

I don't think this kind of reasoning is fair. God didn't give us brains in order to become independant of Him. God sometimes blesses people who walk in His ways, with affliction and sorrow. So the reasoning: they have problems, so they didn't go in God's ways isn't just.

I think you shouldn't plan the number of children you want to have. That doesn't mean you should get a child a year (for you should use your brain, and use a kind of anti-conceptive for some time (at least some months) after a child is born, in order to give the women the rest she deserves). But I think that, if there is a possibility for pregnancy (I mean: if both of the parents are healthy, especially the woman) we should not use anti-conceptives.

If the man and the woman are healthy, but what about the children themselves? Does the eldest of a family of ten, twelve, fourteen get enough attention?

I saw a good article on responsibility on Refoweb lately. See: http://www.refoweb.nl/vragenrubriek/ant ... k5239.html

Unionist schreef:If the man and the woman are healthy, but what about the children themselves? Does the eldest of a family of ten, twelve, fourteen get enough attention?

I think 'getting enough attention' is really a problem in big families. At least, that is what children from those families (8 or more children) told me. Besides, children from big families most of the time have advantages over children from smaller families, like better social skills, being less individualistic, etc. Also they profit from more brothers/sisters who can help with their homework (children tend to learn faster when they teach each other, then when a parent helps them)

Unionist schreef:God gave sexuality also to enjoy each other. How can you enjoy sexuality when you are always afraid of the results?

There are situations when it is not wise to get children. Should one burn in such situations? Is it healthy to have sex and always think: Oh, I hope nothing will come from it? I guess that will be the end of pleasure. Image you eating french fries while continually being afraid of becoming fat. Will you enjoy your meal?

I think Pim's camparison with food is very good. We eat to live, but also for the taste and pleasure of it. That's why food has flavours.

Well, in the 'food-case', we meet another problem.
We don't eat everything God gave us, so we don't buy it, or leave it for another time.
If we have a situation we can't have anymore children (at that time, of what reason might occur) I think we should not have sex. Having sex with anti-conception is something like eating and spittin' it out.
Havin' the pleasure and not the consequences.

And I also don't think we should 'try to get' as many children as possible. But God gives us that number of children, He allocates us. I agree with Memento in this case.

Unionist schreef:If the man and the woman are healthy, but what about the children themselves? Does the eldest of a family of ten, twelve, fourteen get enough attention?

I saw a good article on responsibility on Refoweb lately. See: http://www.refoweb.nl/vragenrubriek/ant ... k5239.html

In english please :mrgreen:

Havin' the pleasure and not the consequences.

Where did you get the notion that sex is only for reproduction?

memento schreef:

Unionist schreef:If the man and the woman are healthy, but what about the children themselves? Does the eldest of a family of ten, twelve, fourteen get enough attention?

I think 'getting enough attention' is really a problem in big families. At least, that is what children from those families (8 or more children) told me. Besides, children from big families most of the time have advantages over children from smaller families, like better social skills, being less individualistic, etc. Also they profit from more brothers/sisters who can help with their homework (children tend to learn faster when they teach each other, then when a parent helps them)

What do you prefer: getting attention from your parents or from your brothers and sisters?

If we have a situation we can't have anymore children (at that time, of what reason might occur) I think we should not have sex. Having sex with anti-conception is something like eating and spittin' it out.

So some couples should never have sex, according to you. Or, in other words, if the wife is using some kind of psychiatric medicines, or other medicines that interfere with pregnancy (and there are a lot of medicines that do), the couple shouldn't have sex?

I would say: just those people need it the most. Sex is not only a way to please each other, it also has a emotional effect, and is an essential part of growing more close to each other, in being as 'one flesh'.

Besides, it's against the words of Paul, who says that people should not refuse sex to the husband.

What do you prefer: getting attention from your parents or from your brothers and sisters?

You can have both. A day has 24 hours, from which you have to work 8. I should say: plenty of time left to spend with the children. It's just how you prioritize...

BTW: It's supprisingly to see that the argument of 'enough attention' comes most of the time from couples with a working mother. Well, if attention is that important, the first thing to consider has to be the mother stopping working, not having no more children...

O please continue in Dutch. I see no reason for using English apart from the English first post in the thread. I think many of the people participating in this discussion can read English well, but their writing skills need some improvement.

we lijken wel kuddedieren
er post iemand een engelse sermon en we beginnen meteen engels te praten.

Nouja, moeilijke dingen zeg je soms makkelijker in een andere taal.

Miscanthus schreef:we lijken wel kuddedieren
er post iemand een engelse sermon en w ebeginnne metene engels te praten.
zou het misschien met het onderwerp te maken hebben?
Moeilijke dingen zeg je makkelijker in een andere taal.

No no, 'exercise bears art'

parsifal schreef:(..) their writing skills need some improvement.

Maybe that's why we discuss in English? :idea:

Pim schreef:

parsifal schreef:(..) their writing skills need some improvement.

Maybe that's why we discuss in English? :idea:

Lets open a new topic called: Writing english for dummies

Pim schreef:

parsifal schreef:(..) their writing skills need some improvement.

Maybe that's why we discuss in English? :idea:

Writing skills are definitely not improved when there's nobody who corrects errors. I agree with Parsifal.

Although writing a master thesis in English, I'm not able to write fluently and in plain English posts about topics like these ; I'm too constrained in my vocabulary, alas.

Dus laten we in duidelijk Nederlands verder gaan over voorbehoedsmiddelen, dan zeg je minder snel gekke dingen ook