Lisa Metzger says its not the the extra children...

[Bookworm89]

Well I think a lot of American's term as needs are really wants (but I have benefitted from them so not knocking them completly), I do think what fundies term as "wants" are actually needs in any society. Going without medical insurance, good food (which without leads to more health problems sometimes). I read about them and just thank god that my sister only has 3 kids currently (she is open to any children god gives her, but there has been a 2.5-4 year age gap between the 3 she has).

[Bella99]

If we had more children and they got the same bill of health as Her Maj, it would definitely add to the financial pressure. Even when we were insured we routinely shelled out $130 a month in prescription co-pays. Asthma and ADD may not be deadly, but they can have lifelong consequences if left untreated. Now I try to order inhalers ahead of time from Canada and wish we could meet her medical needs for $130 a month.

[AnnoDomini]

Concerning 'handouts', I cannot of course speak for all fundies, but in my house, the problem with 'handouts' isn't the receiving of things from others. My family believes in people helping people by their own choice, and I was given to understand that this was the normal belief for Christians of my family's stripe and many others. The problem was in being forced to give money for government-run programs, when my family believed it was the people's place to help out their neighbor by their own choice, not the government's.

I'm not interested in getting into a debate over this, particularly since I'm still examining my beliefs about this. Just trying to clear some things up.

[lilwriter85]

I can see both sides of the argument here.

Kids don't necessarily NEED things like name brand clothes, expensive shoes, braces, ballet lessons, organized sports, martial arts classes, to go to prom, letterman jackets, yearbooks, video game systems, cable television, etc. Those are all luxuries, even here in the US.

However, for a child to go without adequate medical care, a weather-tight home, nourshing food, clothing that fits and is season appropriate, a decent education and properly fitting shoes here in the US? That is a travesty.

Good point about the luxuries that kids don't really need. I think a lot of fundie kids don't have some of those luxuries for various reasons. Homeschooling cuts out sports, proms, class rings, after school activities, etc. But some fundies do give their kids some luxuries like braces, music lessons and sometimes vacations. The only possible luxury Lisa's kids might have is maybe music lessons or something like that.

But I agree children not having medical care/insurance, good food, necessary clothing and at least new pairs of shoes is a travesty and some fundies don't provide their children with these things because they often can't afford them.

[emmiedahl]

When people rely on neighbors and friends to help them, then welfare becomes a popularity contest. I'm not comfortable with that.

I think the fundies simply do not like their money going to non-Christians. That's why they are all, 'Oh, your church should be helping!' The underlying message is: Jews, Muslims and atheists can suck it.

[lilwriter85]

When people rely on neighbors and friends to help them, then welfare becomes a popularity contest. I'm not comfortable with that.

I think the fundies simply do not like their money going to non-Christians. That's why they are all, 'Oh, your church should be helping!' The underlying message is: Jews, Muslims and atheists can suck it.

Good points emmiedahl. I agree I don't think fundies like the idea of their money going to non-Christians. I 'm also uncomfortable with fundies turning charity/handouts into a popularity contest. Kelly at GC and the Bates family are examples of that. Both families have discussed the help they get from people all the time on blogs and Gil and Kelly mention the help they get on TV and articles. With Gil and Kelly it's hard to sympathize with them because they receive handouts from others but yet they still manage to take expensive road trips.

The whole thing fundies have about churches sometimes providing for families in need isn't realistic especially in today's economy. Even churches in wealthier communities are struggling too. I know of a few churches that limit how much financial help they give to families in need.

[emmiedahl]

My temple gives no assistance. It is a really small temple and we borrow a rabbi from someone else. I would never ask them for help. Plus, then I would worry that people are judging: are my children's shoes too nice? Why is there a soda can in her driver's seat? I have a friend who received help from her church for several months when her husband had cancer. It was a Mormon church and they eventually cut off assistance because the church ladies came over and her dishes were not done. The family had been big in the church and given a tenth of their income faithfully for more than a decade. That would be a common story if churches were our only measure against poverty.

[lilwriter85]

My temple gives no assistance. It is a really small temple and we borrow a rabbi from someone else. I would never ask them for help. Plus, then I would worry that people are judging: are my children's shoes too nice? Why is there a soda can in her driver's seat? I have a friend who received help from her church for several months when her husband had cancer. It was a Mormon church and they eventually cut off assistance because the church ladies came over and her dishes were not done. The family had been big in the church and given a tenth of their income faithfully for more than a decade. That would be a common story if churches were our only measure against poverty.

That is a crappy reason to cut off assistance, especially when the family gave a lot to the church. The reasons for churches limiting financial can vary though. My friend's uncle is a minister at a UMC church. This church only assists people with bills or groceries for three months max. The reason they do adopted this policy was due to a a single mom and her daughter who sort of took extreme advantage of the church's finances and some of the church members.

[Bella99]

My temple gives no assistance. It is a really small temple and we borrow a rabbi from someone else. I would never ask them for help. Plus, then I would worry that people are judging: are my children's shoes too nice? Why is there a soda can in her driver's seat? I have a friend who received help from her church for several months when her husband had cancer. It was a Mormon church and they eventually cut off assistance because the church ladies came over and her dishes were not done. The family had been big in the church and given a tenth of their income faithfully for more than a decade. That would be a common story if churches were our only measure against poverty.

This is so sad. What a horrible bunch of hags. One of my friends temporarily went from struggle to under water and they needed help with their rent. Each organization they went to would only give them a small portion of what was needed and would only give it upon receiving proof they would be able to get the rest from other organizations. I helped them out with transportation for the roundup and without that there is no way they would have been able to keep from being locked out of their apartment. Even if they couldn't assemble the entire amount, being able to give their landlord a small payment might have been enough to buy them some time, but these groups wouldn't give anything if the family was not able to raise the entire amount.

[desertvixen]

anno domini writes:

Concerning 'handouts', I cannot of course speak for all fundies, but in my house, the problem with 'handouts' isn't the receiving of things from others. My family believes in people helping people by their own choice, and I was given to understand that this was the normal belief for Christians of my family's stripe and many others. The problem was in being forced to give money for government-run programs, when my family believed it was the people's place to help out their neighbor by their own choice, not the government's.

emmiedahl writes:

When people rely on neighbors and friends to help them, then welfare becomes a popularity contest. I'm not comfortable with that.

Which is why we have state programs - because we tried church-only charity, and giving to the "worthy poor" and humiliating people for a small amount of support (okay, so maybe that last one hasn't changed very much, in some cases) and they didn't actually work that well.

[Patsy]

I can see both sides of the argument here.

Kids don't necessarily NEED things like name brand clothes, expensive shoes, braces, ballet lessons, organized sports, martial arts classes, to go to prom, letterman jackets, yearbooks, video game systems, cable television, etc. Those are all luxuries, even here in the US.

However, for a child to go without adequate medical care, a weather-tight home, nourshing food, clothing that fits and is season appropriate, a decent education and properly fitting shoes here in the US? That is a travesty.

The way you've mentioned these two sides, is as two sides. A lot of times I've seen those two sides presented as the only two sides of opposite choices, and man, do some fundies like to push that false dichotomy. All parents think about what 'needs' are really 'needs', and balance how much they're going to spoil/deprive their kid. I'm not saying that in a 'we all find our way', way, I think a lot of them get it seriously wrong - either spoiling their kids or neglecting them horribly. Strangely enough the fundies who bring up these two sides never mention the neglectful side. At the end of the day, the only needs/wants split that doesn't end in neglect is the one you've mentioned, and that's the one they're desperately trying to avoid when they mention these examples of vastly spoiled kids. 'They've all got it wrong, but we're not spoiling our kids!', they cry, while fundamentally failing the people they should be providing for.

See also: 'Oh, they're sheltered!? Would you have our children raised by the values of the world?' You don't need to indoctrinate your children and have them read only character studies in order to avoid High School Musical. It's not Elsie Dinsmore OR Saw III.

[VintageJen1984]

Here is how I believe and understand it:

There are two parts of a Christian "Flesh" (worldly desires) and "Spirit" (heavenly desires). The flesh naturally wants things that, as a Christian, I believe are wrong. So, I must "die to the flesh", and deny myself what is wrong. Such as: not being prideful, not lying, not having premarital sex etc.

HOWEVER. Kelly has twisted it beyond its real meaning, even in light of the Bible (which I do believe and follow). Nowhere in the Bible does God give a commandment to "have as many children as is physically feasible" or "do not limit your family size else fear the wrath of God!". He does command parents to provide for their families.

In fact, the entire "quiverfull" idea is based off of one verse in Proverbs, which was NOT meant as any sort of command. So the phrase "dying to flesh", can't be applied biblically to how many children one has, at all.

I was thinking about that verse and the whole QF concept today while I was at work. It simply says

(Psalm 127: 3-5 KJV)

3Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

4As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.

5Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.

It says nothing about being cursed for not having children. It is not a command. It simply says they are a blessing and a reward.

If you tell your kid they get a reward of one M&M every time they remember to flush the potty, they will stand by the toilet flushing it over and over until you give them the whole package. This "as many blessings as possible" approach to children is on the same maturity level as the potty flusher. We are to welcome blessings, not wrecklessly chase after them with all the zeal of a trick-or-treater.

But Jen! you might say. We are commanded to have children!

(Genesis 1:28 KJV)

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Actually, it says to multiply in order to replenish the earth, and that command follows the account of the flood. When you replenish your pantry you do not put more each time than the time before. You simply refill the missing spots that got used. Or in this case, the people who got wiped out in the flood.

The same thing is recounted later in Genesis, but again to Noah and his family after the flood.

Even if we were commanded as in all of us forever, to multiply, that does not mean we must all have as many as possible and never stop. I would say 3. 2 is replacing. Therefore 3 is multiplying.

[Want More Babies]

Lisa Metzger...that women is the :evil:

First off, she signs her emails, "Helpmeet to Mark, Keeper of Our Home, 2nd Generation Homeschool Mommy to 9

Blessings (6 biological, 3 adopted) plus 7 angels in heaven!" I am sure her 3 adopted children appreciate being second class children in her eyes. Why not say mom to 9 and leave it at that? Oh no, this beeyotch wants everyone to know how good of a person she is for adopting. It's always about Lisa and how she can look good to others. She is a very proud person. I have been following her for years and years. She is not a nice person at all, though she tries to come across that way. Very vindictive.

[Want More Babies]

Oh and she is whining on Facebook about how she is the target over here and how her heart (I didn't know she had one) aches at our angry, bitter, godless hearts.

[emmiedahl]

Link? Please?

[Want More Babies]

"This post has caused me to be a target at Free Jinger again. Praying that these women on that site, who have nothing better to do than examine and criticize others who use the Bible as their guide in life, will see the JOY I have in JESUS! Praying that they will read something on my blog and be turned to repentance in JESUS! Pray with me! There is hope for them. My heart aches at their angry, bitter, godless hearts!"

I don't want to out myself (I am in the fundie closet) but this was her exact quote.

[emmiedahl]

Thanks, that will suffice. I don't want you to blow your cover!

Yes, I have nothing better to do. I go to school online and the videos are slow to load, and any comments on classroom discussions take forever to post. I keep school in one window and this in the other; it makes things go faster. But I guess I should be folding laundry or scrubbing something and then making a big deal over what a trial it is and how Godly I am for matching socks. (looks around immaculate house)

[Austin]

lol

No, Lisa honey, there really isn't any hope for me, at least the kind that you're peddling. BTDT. Not interested.

And it's called multi-tasking. Multiple tabs open on the internet at once. . . it's a friggin' miracle! :roll: :D

[lilwriter85]

"This post has caused me to be a target at Free Jinger again. Praying that these women on that site, who have nothing better to do than examine and criticize others who use the Bible as their guide in life, will see the JOY I have in JESUS! Praying that they will read something on my blog and be turned to repentance in JESUS! Pray with me! There is hope for them. My heart aches at their angry, bitter, godless hearts!"

I don't want to out myself (I am in the fundie closet) but this was her exact quote.

:lol: at that statement. FJers are never going to be turned to repentance because of Lisa's blog. Some of us aren't godless. I'm an atheist and I know there are other atheists here. There are Christians here, Muslims and Jews and we all respect each other.

[Kitchen Princess]

Good point about the luxuries that kids don't really need. I think a lot of fundie kids don't have some of those luxuries for various reasons. Homeschooling cuts out sports, proms, class rings, after school activities, etc. But some fundies do give their kids some luxuries like braces, music lessons and sometimes vacations. The only possible luxury Lisa's kids might have is maybe music lessons or something like that.

But I agree children not having medical care/insurance, good food, necessary clothing and at least new pairs of shoes is a travesty and some fundies don't provide their children with these things because they often can't afford them.

Regarding the bolded part above: Totally not true. Aside from the question of whether the things listed are worthy of my time or interest, homeschoolers have access to all of those things, and many created by homeschool co-ops and some accessible via public schools.

It would be more accurate to say that many fundies don't allow their kids to participate in the activities that a typical high school kid gets to do...but it's not because of homeschooling.

[Mommy22alyns]

Regarding the bolded part above: Totally not true. Aside from the question of whether the things listed are worthy of my time or interest, homeschoolers have access to all of those things, and many created by homeschool co-ops and some accessible via public schools.

It would be more accurate to say that many fundies don't allow their kids to participate in the activities that a typical high school kid gets to do...but it's not because of homeschooling.

Thank you, Creaky! My girls are homeschooled and participate in plenty of sports and activities.

[Soulhuntress]

That is a crappy reason to cut off assistance, especially when the family gave a lot to the church. The reasons for churches limiting financial can vary though. My friend's uncle is a minister at a UMC church. This church only assists people with bills or groceries for three months max. The reason they do adopted this policy was due to a a single mom and her daughter who sort of took extreme advantage of the church's finances and some of the church members.

Sadly I agree that there are folks who take advantage of the church and it makes it harder for those who really need short term assistance to get help. I actually love a local ministry for this reason: there are requirements for assistance (things like working towards a job, financial responsibility and so on for those who are physically and mentally able to do so) but Love Inc gives smaller churches the ability to really help a family or individuals who are in need. Yes it is Overtly Christian (better than stealth IMNSHO) but their assistance gives the assisted back some dignity. Charity is a difficult thing to receive and to give for a lot of people. :D

And Emmie unfortunately long term care is not something the faith community (as in individual units) is really equipped to do. Some groups (denominational and non denominational) have professionals (social workers and so on) who do an awesome job of helping out when someone has a long term illness or mental health issues. It is hard for the nice church ladies (or whatever term is in use for your community) to "get it" when someone needs more than a few weeks of casseroles. :(

[lilwriter85]

Regarding the bolded part above: Totally not true. Aside from the question of whether the things listed are worthy of my time or interest, homeschoolers have access to all of those things, and many created by homeschool co-ops and some accessible via public schools.

It would be more accurate to say that many fundies don't allow their kids to participate in the activities that a typical high school kid gets to do...but it's not because of homeschooling.

I agree it isn't totatlly true. I should have clarified in that post about homeschooling activities A fundie lite family I grew up near did allow their sons to play youth soccer and baseball. Tim Tebow was from a fundie lite family and he played football through a public school in Florida. The access to those things is there.

[docmom]

Which is why we have state programs - because we tried church-only charity, and giving to the "worthy poor" and humiliating people for a small amount of support (okay, so maybe that last one hasn't changed very much, in some cases) and they didn't actually work that well.

For a very graphic description of the humiliation and "worthiness" testing of church-only charity read "Angela's Ashes" by Frank McCourt. Ireland's entire social safety net at the time was in the hands of the church and it wasn't pretty. My mother grew up in a family with 5 children and a widowed mother in a poor rural village in Scotland at the same time as Frank McCourt was growing up in Ireland. The difference was that the UK had moved to a government sponsored social safety net. They had free health care, free schooling through University and a rent-sponsored warm and comfortable house with indoor bathroom. This helping hand from the government helped all those kids move to the middle class and away from needing any help from anyone. If my grandmother had had to rely on the church I doubt any of this would have happened and she would probably have been rejected anyway as one of the children was born out of wedlock.

[jenny_islander]

It really sticks in my craw when there's a worthiness test for church charity. Offhand I can recall only two requirements for receiving alms in the entire Bible:

1. Are you poor?

2. If you are a member of the organization from which you are requesting aid, and you are able to work (which would mean physically, mentally, and with jobs available), are you in fact working?

Because my congregation is tiny, we add a third requirement: Have you tried getting help from the bigger organizations out there and did they turn you down or put you on a waiting list? That way we can put our small charitable budget into the hands of people who have no alternatives.

Denying a family aid because one of the children was born before the mother was married--that is disgusting.