/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I would be careful about pushing Christianity too hard on your kid, if you browse r/atheism or any other atheist site you'll notice the majority of fedora tippers are born out of a general "winnie the pooh you, Dad!" mentality of people rebelling against overly restrictive parents.

The best thing you can do is be the best father you can possibly be. Lavish your child with attention, make time for them, don't be overly strict (but at the same time put your foot down and use discipline when you need to) and build a bond of understanding so when they do reach that age when they begin questioning you'll be ready to guide them down the right path.

If you go ahead with that plan you posted I guarantee that your kid will reject Christ and become a Dawkins fanatic as soon as they hit 16. You can't shield your child from the world forever, and the tighter your grip the harder they'll try to rebel against you when the time comes. What you need to do is give them the guidance and knowledge necessary to know why secular society is wrong.

Congratulations on the upcoming birth of your child and I wish you the best on your journey as a father.

>>674833

>What do you guys think of Epidurals and vaccines also?

Epidurals are a bad idea. Everyone woman I know that got one ending up with a C-section and the kid came out drugged up to high hell. See, the epidural makes it so the woman doesn't dialate as fast, and then it wears off, and then there's complications. Just don't do it, labor for women that took it was more painful and unsuccessful than my wife who I taught to just disconnect from the pain and suck it up - which she's done like a champ and managed to have her kids vaginally.

Nothing wrong with having the baby in a hospital though, that's safest, but if wifey is in good condition, home is pretty safe too. I'd err on the side of hospital.

Vaccines- Get them. Don't let an idiot tell you otherwise. So, 1st, let's say the moron was actually right when he found a correlation in that first autism-vaccine study. Even if he was right, the tiny % change of autism is better than the kids dying of whooping cough, measles, etc. Enough idiots aren't doing the vaccines now where you can't count on being a free-rider.

Second, they've tried to replicate the studies - they can't. So, if vaccines did at one point cause autism, big Pharma went "oh winnie the pooh," and immediately fixed the problem and discredited the whistle blower- but, as far as we go, the problem is fixed. So, there's no chance of you're kid getting autism from them now.

However, if you want to be very particular, insist your kid only take single-dose vaccines (ask the administering nurse) because multi-dose vials use mercury to stop contamination but that does have some small percentage adverse effects. Single-dose vaccines are a little more expensive but don't carry that risk.

I have 2 kids

TL;DR - No epidural, give the kids vaccines.

>>674833

>Homeschooling

On this matter, while I am not trained in this field, this appears a good idea. You need to make sure that your child is socialized with others. The mistake of state schooling is that they socialize people only with those of the same age, hence you get youth culture.

It used to be that children were socialized with adults, and thus acted like adults.

It's very important that you yourself set a good example. Your kid won't respect you and listen to you if you set rules for him and yet don't abide by them yourself.

>>674931

>It used to be that children were socialized with adults, and thus acted like adults

Not exactly true. If you go see small tribes, kids still hang around with each other and have loose assignments attached to their day as they play. But they also spend time learning to do specific things with adults.

However, arbitrarily having kids hang out with only the group born in one year is obviously not how nature would have it. Maria Montessori showed kids learned much better when there was a large swath of ages in a single classroom - but people have largely ignored the only decently scientific study of education in the last century because it goes against our "factory" model of education.

Home-schooling is a great idea, but be part of a home schooling group, think deeply about what you want to teach and why, and be willing to break out of all the ineffective paradigms.

Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord,

the fruit of the womb a reward.

Like arrows in the hand of a warrior

are the children of one's youth.

Blessed is the man

who fills his quiver with them!

He shall not be put to shame

when he speaks with his enemies in the gate. — Psalm 127:35

Make lots of babies.

Understand your faith well and pass it only gently and lovingly. Make it fun and exciting.

I don't have kids because I have autism and I have the distinct feeling that if I have kids they'll be autistic too, and I wouldn't want any kid suffering that. It sounds selfish, and it probably is, but is it better to have a kid that I can't do right for or don't have a kid at all?

I'm far from being a parent, but one of the things I worry the most about is education. This mostly stems from my education being a big factor of why I'm far from being a parent, I'm a complete social mess that's unable to communicate with women. I went to a Christian private school from K-6 and then homeschooled through the rest of highschool. I'm nearly what people here say they want to happen to their children, but in certain ways things could not be worse and I think it is largely associated with these schooling choices. Christian school can be great or terrible, I would just recommend being willing to pull out immediately if things aren't working out. For me Christianity was used at school to push feminine standards on boys and support a constant watchful administration that I suspect ingrained in me the constant feeling of judgement from others and fear of what others think of me. Homeschooling can be done well, my old best friend from highschool is one of the most social people I know, married young and working as a pastor, but I've also seen how it can lead to seclusion.Also if you go that though you need to trust your wife to educate your kids, I have seen some absolutely retarded stuff passed off as education. Maybe I don't fear public education because I wasn't directly exposed to it, but right now that's what I'm most inclined towards for my children, but part of that stems from my not expecting to be able to afford quality private education

>>675030

>>674840

>winnie the pooh you, Dad!

This. This so much i vacant stand it. Theee kids get so angry at God because their dads get them up on the weekend, one of the days they want to sleep in and play PS1, and forces them to dress nice to go to church. What a pathetic reason, perfect background for the average atheist; a baby that wants everything by doing nothing

>>674840

Most of these angry atheists don't have fathers or their fathers are Atheist. At least, that's been the case with the many Atheists I know. I know the meme is fedoras arguing about God at Thanksgiving dinner but, from my experience, those dinners happen with an absentee dad.

Sheltered kids turn on their parents if the parents have used their religion to exert control for personal dominance. If, instead, you've aptly prepared your kid for the world, they'll thank you. It depends on why you're doing it and whether you're really letting God be in control of their education. Many home schooled kids are very happy about it come adulthood when they see the degeneracy of their peers in college.

>Homeschooling.

Good if you live in a kiked country

>Healthy diet.

Good

>And of course church and Bible.

This too

>What do you guys think of Epidurals and vaccines also?

Most of them are necessary. Don't put your kids health in risk for some autism with no medical support

>We're inclined to take a more holistic approach particularly with birth, but would not refuse medical intervention in an emergency.

Don't winnie the pooh risk it. Your wife could bleed out even if you called the doctors in after. Do it in an hospital like everyone. I've heard that in America they like to do births by C section. Well only do it if its really necessary. Natural birth under medical supervision is still the master race.

>>674852

What about vaccines for STDs (HPV, HIV, etc)? Would you let them take it?

I have six children. Nothing you think or plan will come to fruition. Every child is different and you won't know anything until it happens. You truly cannot prepare.

As for an epidural, that ain't up to you. If she asks for it, she will get it. Your opinion won't be requested or required.

Yes, for all that is good and holy, vaccinate your damn kids! If not, then you can look your child, laying at deaths door with reubella, and say, "I could have prevented this."

Oh, and if you're not educated, don't homeschool. The world doesn't need more idiots.

>>674833

>i am interested in /christian/ views on raising children

you indeed should raise them.

there should be a father present in the house and he must be the authority. meaning the wife should have no access to the family court system and the children should not have access to cps.

you should own your house outright, you should not finance your house through usury or fiat currency loan. this is a consummable.

you should trade in tangible contracts and only use precious metals as money.

you should feed your children only meat that was raised not eating genetically modified grass or fodder.

always have the audio kjv playing while they sleep on loop.

your homeschooling curriculum should be based on actually executing functions. children should learn english exclusively from the bible, and the rest of their curriculum should be elementary applied engineering with simple tools, qualitative and quantitative chemistry, html and visual basic programming, and firearm safety, usage, and assembly.

epidurals and vaccines will sap your children’s vitality and lead to reduction in skeletal bone density, autistic and schizotypal tendencies, and premature greying.

i hear water birth is the way to go.

surprisingly i have no kids.

>>675676

That was genuinely funny.

>>675653

>As for an epidural, that ain't up to you. If she asks for it, she will get it. Your opinion won't be requested or required.

If you have control of your wife, it certainly does matter. Teach her how to calm herself, counting and breathing techniques, and keep her focused on other things than the pain. Also, tell nurses/doctors to politely winnie the pooh off if they keep offering it.

As long as you're supportive and keeping her focused, she'll be on board with you. Confidence and support are key; epidurals happen when you let her panic.

>>675652

Yeah, cause there's other ways to get STDs than fornication.

Sure, it's usually sex, but sports injuries, accidents, etc. can open you up to that shit and it would be a heck of a price to pay just to teach them a lesson about premarital sex.

>>675653

> if you're not educated, don't homeschool

Is this the good old "all right-wingers are uneducated rednecks" meme?

>>675208

I agree. Or if their families were Christian they were lukewarm and failed to prepare the kids with proper defenses against secularism.

I don't plan on sheltering my kid, really. But when they come to me and want to watch some secular show or paly some violent video game, I'll sit down and ask them questions and point out any advertisments, the differences between real life vs. waht they're seeing, how the particular piee of media may go against God's will, etc.

>>675836

You have no metric by which to compare it. You also don't seem to understand that when she's in the hospital to give birth, she is the patient - not you. You don't even have to be in the room and, as a matter of fact, you have to have her permission to be in the room. If she wants an epidural, she will get it. Period. If you try to refuse her pain medication, then you are a terrible husband and will be an even worse father.

>>676113

>You have no metric by which to compare it.

LOL no. This is the argument feminists use to say why men cannot opine on abortion "it can't happen to you, you don't understand." Fallacious logic is fallacious logic. I know what pain is, further, I've personally experienced pain- extreme pain. I've also taught myself to pray through the pain and it helps a lot more in the long-term than medication.

>You also don't seem to understand that when she's in the hospital to give birth, she is the patient - not you.

Of course I understand she is the patient. Why would you suggest I don't?

>You don't even have to be in the room and, as a matter of fact, you have to have her permission to be in the room.

Yep. Which she always grants because I'm her best support while getting through birth. Which shes done amazingly twice, no epidural.

>If she wants an epidural, she will get it. Period.

This is not true. If she demands an epidural, she will get it. Look, when in extreme duress, we all may want things that are not good for us. Starving men cannibalize other men. Do you think allowing cannibalism is warranted? People in extreme pain will, if not reminded of their sane mind, do anything to stop said pain.

My wife never wanted an epidural going in. She knew that it created complications and caused more C-sections. When the pains of labor were front and center, she wanted anything to make the pain stop- but I kept her focused, reminded her of her goal, got her to breath and count and we managed to get through without her demanding it from the nurses. She was very proud of herself afters, and very happy she didn't have one. Before labor started she didn't want it, after labor she was glad she didn't have it. Frankly, I don't think women in the midst of labor are cognizant enough to be entrusted with their own healthcare choices- if it's as overwhelming as they say, clearly they can't make a rational choice and there preferences -before- they were reduced to a state of crazy pain should be the ones guiding the physician. We normally don't allow patients not in their right mind to make decisions for themselves.

But, since I know our medical situation is winnie the poohed in this regard, I just got her to focus on me and shake her head when the nurse asked about an epidural. As a result, she's had two healthy babies vaginally while all her friends had to have C-sections (literally, all of them except the one who also didn't have an epidural because she's crazy tough) because the baby's heart rate started dropping (thanks to prolonged labor because of the epidural).

>If you try to refuse her pain medication, then you are a terrible husband and will be an even worse father.

If you can't coach your wife through birthing, and do what's best for her and your baby, saving them from unnecessary pain medication and complications… I'm not going to mirror your crap. You're an average husband, doing what everyone else does out of a weak will. It's understandable, but it's luke-warm and it's of the world. Women got through six millenia, at least, without epidurals. Come on now.

Also, I don't see how wanting my baby to come out all not-drugged-up is being a bad father. The difference in an epidural baby and a baby without is obvious. Our kids came out inquisitive and active. All the epidural kids basically had to sleep off the tranqs for a week or two and were super lethargic, which also lead to difficulty latching and their mothers giving up breast feeding for formula because they couldn't stand their newborn not having the strength the pull the milk out naturally.

So, yeah, not fighting the epidural also hurts your kid's immune system for the first two years and who knows what the drugs do to the mind of a newborn.

>>676127

Ok, I will counter your anecdote with mine. Six kids, epidural every time, not a single damn problem with any of them. My six beats your two. There is nothing wrong with an epidural.

>>676128

https://www.scienceandsensibility.org/p/bl/et/blogid=2&blogaid=749

At the very least, epidurals are risky and should be a Plan B. Here's a bunch of studies supporting the general likelihood they epidurals complicate labor, so your anecdotal evidence countered with actual evidence.

I'm very glad that your six came out fine; and congrats on six kids. I'm glad there's no problems with your kids but you can't be sure they wouldn't have been better off without them - did your wife breastfeed them all?

What I don't understand is why you're so combative to a brother in Christ who's just trying to protect people from this generally over-medicated world. Your position doesn't seem to be very Christian.

>>676128

Also, even your opinion of the anecdotal evidence is off. I know 3 woman who had epidurals and had to have C-Sections. I know 2 woman (1 with 1 child, 1 with 2) who did not have epidurals and did not need C-Sections.

Even including your stats, still:

-3 natural / no C-Section

-9 epidural / 3 C-Sections.

Suggests that there is a 33% increase in chance of C-section by taking an epidural and, more to the point, it's possible that your wife is an anamoly since she's the only woman I know that didn't have a C-section after an epidural. So, no, your anecdotal evidence doesn't counter mine.

Additionally, why did you ignore every other point I made? I'm not relying solely on my experiences, I explained why - for instance the fact that we went at least 6 millenia without epidurals- as reasoning for why it's not a big deal. You didn't counter any of the other points even though they were, in many cases, direct counters to your own in the early post.

>>676133

I'm not being combative. I am on the side of science because of medicine. Medicine is a good and important thing in the world and having it is usually worth the potential cost of complications. Much like the vaccines argument - on which we agree.

My wife is a small woman, small frame, and it was a choice between epidural or C-section. We chose epidural because we wanted more than one child and after the first C-section, the options become very limited due to scarring of the uterus. So, as you see, every situation is different. There is no blanket "this or that". For example, current science shows a correlation between coffee drinkers and lowered sperm count. I drink coffee a lot. Love the stuff. But I'm pretty sure my sperm count is fine based on all these rugrats.

Yes, 5 of the kids were breastfed, but the 2nd youngest was born with a slight palate problem and could not properly latch on to the breast. No big deal, really. Problem has long since been fixed.

>>676143

I don't like going down walls of text with point by point replies. Fact is, I have 6 kids and every one was born with the mother having an epidural. No birth complications, no lethargic babies, and no long term effects (my oldest is 20 and in college). Is there the possibility of epidural side effects? Yes. But to tell a prospective parent (like OP) that he's going to damage his child if his wife gets pain medication or that he's not the right kind of man because he can't make his wife fight pain is not only presumptive, but it's scare tactic bullying (which is why the anti-vaxxer movement is getting so big).

Fact is, neither of us know. It's all an exercise in academics.

>>675891

As someone who was homeschooled by a former teacher I approve of that. It's not necessarily that you need to be formally educated as a teacher to homeschool, but I've seen some pretty straight up stupid people homeschooling their children who definitely should have chose a different option. If you don't know math you shouldn't teach your children math, if you don't know history you shoudln't teach your children history, etc. You can learn these things to teach them to your children, but if you're learning them just a few months before your children you can end up using Myth Busters as your science curriculum, only slightly joking.

>>676148

I'm not being combative. I am on the side of science because of medicine. Medicine is a good and important thing in the world and having it is usually worth the potential cost of complications. Much like the vaccines argument - on which we agree.

Science is great. Pain medication doesn't treat problems, it treats symptoms. I love science, medicine and science don't always get along- for instance, the high rate a C-sections in medicine despite science suggesting it's unnecessary and damaging.

>My wife is a small woman, small frame, and it was a choice between epidural or C-section. We chose epidural because we wanted more than one child and after the first C-section, the options become very limited due to scarring of the uterus. So, as you see, every situation is different. There is no blanket "this or that". For example, current science shows a correlation between coffee drinkers and lowered sperm count. I drink coffee a lot. Love the stuff. But I'm pretty sure my sperm count is fine based on all these rugrats.

So, your first came by C-section, right? Thank you for admitting this. Epidurals cause the biggest incidence of c-section in first time births (see also the link I provided). Scarring of the uterus can make women barren on top of difficult birthing (embryo can't attach / doesn't attach properly)- thank God this didn't happen to your wife, but it happens to many first time mothers thanks to epidurals causing C-sections.

I'm glad you got six kids, that God protected you, and it worked out for you but I'm trying to protect OP and anyone else reading from the -possible- but real complications of epidurals.

Our society is vastly over-medicating pain right in science's face. The reason the U.S. life expectancy went down for the first time in decades last year was due to deaths from opiod addiction.

>I don't like going down walls of text with point by point replies. Fact is, I have 6 kids and every one was born with the mother having an epidural. No birth complications, no lethargic babies, and no long term effects (my oldest is 20 and in college). Is there the possibility of epidural side effects? Yes. But to tell a prospective parent (like OP) that he's going to damage his child if his wife gets pain medication or that he's not the right kind of man because he can't make his wife fight pain is not only presumptive, but it's scare tactic bullying (which is why the anti-vaxxer movement is getting so big).

I'm not trying to scare OP, I'm trying to set OP on the ideal course. Scarring of the uterus was a big concern of ours and why we didn't want C-section because we want more kids. Epidurals increase risk of C-section, especially in first births. Also, most parents with all babies having had epidurals don't know the difference of babies without. I only know because our kid was born once month after our friend's kid who had a C-section and epidural and the difference was still obvious. Difference in awareness went away after 2-3 months, but still, that can't be good.

And the biggest issue - if the woman goes in thinking epidural is not an option and sure she doesn't want one, most of the time they come through fine (your case I understand is an reasonable exception because of the scarring issue- but the scarring might have been prevented had you known about this). But if you tell a woman she can escape the pain, without mentioning all of the potential downsides - what do you expect the choice will be? That's why I hate epidurals- the doctors only sell the upsides so they can do more C-sections and make more money.

>>676177

>So, your first came by C-section, right?

No. That's not what I said. The choice was given to have a C-section because her small frame would make labor very difficult. She chose to not get a C-section, opting instead for an epidural to ease the pain of labor. It worked out just fine.

>>676219

Then how'd she get the scarring on the uterus?

Reminder that if you tell your kids about Santa Claus, you're implicitly lying to them and could potentially cause them to further doubt the faith once older.

Tell them about Saint Nicholas of Myra instead.

>>676177

You aren't going to like these quotes, gird up thine loins right now and read on.

<I am on the side of science

Proverbs 3:5-8

>Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

>In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

>Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD,and depart from evil.

>It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.

Science is philosophy and philosophy is colossians 2:8

>Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

<because of medicine. Medicine is a good and important thing in the world and having it is usually worth the potential cost of complications. Much like the vaccines argument

Medicine, and vaccines by extension fall under romans 14:23

>And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

So what's the Bible say about medicine? See jeremiah 8:22

>Is there no balm in Gilead; is there no physician there? why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?

The answer is jeremiah 46:11

>Go up into Gilead, and take balm, O virgin, the daughter of Egypt: in vain shalt thou use many medicines; for thou shalt not be cured.

Why will they not be healed? Because anything not of faith is sin, and thusly God declared their unfaithfulness to Him. So what does God say to do other then lean on His understanding for health? See 1 timothy 5:23

>Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

James 5:14-15

>Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

>And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven

Does it make sense to us? Nope. But it doesn't change anything not of faith is sin, including your health. So trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

<inb4 you're too superstitious anon

<inb4 the Bible doesn't actually say that because *insert liar here quote from the greek and hebrew private interpretations*

<inb4 I don't wana depend on the Lord because I am a coward that can tell you all the chemical properties and the molecular structure of oil and how it chemically interacts with the internal organs of the human body down to the atomic level and what you are telling me is impossible for some sicknesses, and so won't do what the Bible says

I am aware of all these things, but again, trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding

>>676233

Proverbs 3:5-8

I pray for wisdom, I put the bible before scientific studies. But why, when the bible doesn't make a specific point, should we not also utilize studies?

Taken to its logical conclusion, you shouldn't be relying on your knowledge of English (taught to you by men) instead of God. But, then, how could you even read the bible? It's a paradox that's unsolvable with your reading.

>Science is philosophy and philosophy is colossians 2:8

No one's arguing science isn't secondary to the truth of Christ.

>Romans 14:23

Man, did you read this out of context. Romans 14 is how it is right for each of us to do in faith what we think is right. I believed God wanted me to get my kids vaccinated, that's why He led me to the knowledge of them. If you're sure that's not what he wants you to do, then go in faith brother. Still, I'll be glad when my kids don't get those preventable diseases. And, if you'd listen to Romans 14 - it's telling you not to reproach me just because our faith has moved us differently.

It was right for me to reply to OP though, because by asking he suggested he hadn't been moved by God one way or the other.

>the rest is the same general vein of extrapolating too much from single verses.

I do trust in the Lord, I believe He works through other methods than simply miracles- though I believe He does miracles too.

>>676239

>Taken to its logical conclusion, you shouldn't be relying on your knowledge of English (taught to you by men) instead of God.

Anything not of faith is sin romans 14:23. There is a reason in the faith to use words to communicate in the english tongue. That reason being 1 corinthians 14:19-22,26

>Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

>Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

>In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

>Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

>How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

<Romans 14 is how it is right for each of us to do in faith what we think is right.

So totally and utterly wrong, did you not understand the lean unto the Lord for your understanding thing of proverbs 3? Or the be not wise in your own conceits part of proverbs 3? Have another then in judges 17:6

>In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Which is sin because anything not of faith is sin since deutoronomy 13:18 states

>When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God.

Do that which is right in the faith in the eyes of the LORD thy God. Not what "we think is right" which is sin.

>I do trust in the Lord, I believe He works through other methods than simply miracles

Care to give examples out of the Bible we might study together in the faith?

<I believed God wanted me to get my kids vaccinated

How did you come to this conclusion as no prophecy of scripture is of a private interpretaion 2 peter 1:20? Unless you aren't basing this conclusion on the faith in Jesus Christ…..

>>676249

I assume you're a troll. If not, you have some major conceit my friend.

Romans 14:

<Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters.

You seem to be quarreling with me quite a bit

<One person's faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.

My faith allows me to get my kids vaccinated; yours doesn't.

<The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them.

I'm not treating you with contempt- why are you treating me with contempt?

<Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

Who are you to judge me?

<One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.

I'm fully convinced in my mind; are you fully convinced in yours? OP was unsure, so we should each advice OP and OP can pray and be fully convinced.

<Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

You both honor God by eating and not eating meat; likewise, vaccinating or not vaccinating, if that is what God has moved you to do.

I'm not going to break down the whole Chapter, but you get the idea.

>How did you come to this conclusion as no prophecy of scripture is of a private interpretaion 2 peter 1:20?

I'm not giving prophesy. I have faith that it was the right thing to do; vaccinations are not unlawful and they are useful to our health and wellbeing. God would not want my children to be at risk for dying needlessly, He is life and light, not death.

Why do you think it's forbidden? Because I don't trust enough? I could pose the same dilemma to you - Why don't you go wander out in the desert without water, trusting God to give you drink?

The answer is clear, what you say is trusting the Lord would actually be putting God to the test:

"Do not put the Lord your God to the test" - Luke 4:12

>>676256

>I'm not giving prophesy.

You are testifying of Jesus Christ are you not? revelation 19:10

>And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

If you are testifying of Jesus Christ you are claiming to speak by the spirit of prophecy i.e a prophet.

<Who are you to judge me?

<why are you treating me with contempt?

I'm not, I am simply quoting the Bible and how you feel afterwards is your own. Actually on that note

>I have faith that it was the right thing to do; vaccinations are not unlawful and they are useful to our health

Well the modern scientist would also tell us that the balm in gilliead is good for our health. But then God would say about the balm that you shall take many medecines and not be cured. I only asked how you came to the conclusion, in faith, so that I might do the same. But it seems your conclusion is still unexplained.

<God would not want my children to be at risk for dying needlessly

How did you come to this conclusion? Do you doubt that God can't save them if He so wills it?

<Why don't you go wander out in the desert without water, trusting God to give you drink?

Funny you use this example because the israelites were in a similar situation back in exodus 17:1-2

>AND all the congregation of the children of Israel journeyed from the wilderness of Sin, after their journeys, according to the commandment of the LORD,and pitched in Rephidim: and there was no water for the people to drink.

>Wherefore the people did chide with Moses, and said, Give us water that we may drink. And Moses said unto them, Why chide ye with me? wherefore do ye tempt the LORD?

By chiding Moses, and not doing isaiah 40:31

>But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.

They were "tempting" God. Like a test of God. Very very similar to what matthew 4:1,6-7, stated not to do

>THEN was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

>And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

>Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Do not tempt, or test, the Lord thy God. Although it is possible for God to give me water, or for Jesus to jump off the cliff, you shouldn't tempt God. Now if by some happen stance out of my control I was in a desert, then surely I should wait upon the Lord for deliverence such as an oaisis of water being within it. But to those who intentionally go out without water and complain and mumur and tempt the Lord God then 1 corinthians 10:9-10

>Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

>Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.

And numbers 21:5-6 would happen

>And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread.

>And the LORDsent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.

>>676227

She didn't. Re-read what I wrote.

>We chose epidural because we wanted more than one child and after the first C-section, the options become very limited due to scarring of the uterus.

We knew that C-sections scarred the uterus, so we chose not to have one.

>>676259

>So totally and utterly wrong, did you not understand the lean unto the Lord for your understanding thing of proverbs 3? Or the be not wise in your own conceits part of proverbs 3? Have another then in judges 17:6

>>676259

<Who are you to judge me?

<why are you treating me with contempt?

>I'm not, I am simply quoting the Bible and how you feel afterwards is your own. Actually on that note

But, the above quote "so totally and utterly wrong" is clearly judgment. It seems your being disingenuous now to say you're "simply" quoting the bible when you pick short verses without context, arrange them in a way not in the scriptures and add commentary like "so utterly and totally wrong"

>>676259

>>676249

>>676233

Hmm … Christian Scientist or Jehovah's Witness? I can't tell.

>>676262

Okay. Gotcha. You've got a false dichotomy between epidurals and C-sections. You can have a birth without either. My wife did it twice. Because it isn't an either/or issue, and your grammar is a little off, it appears you were somehow arguing epidurals help births after the uterus being scarred- I didn't know about it, so I wasn't going to argue it.

The point is, you can have a vaginal birth without an epidural. Epidural increases the risk of C-Section, and thus, scarring, and thus, less chance for more kids.

Cool that it worked out for you - but that's not the case for everyone. Epidurals are slightly risky and don't produce anything beneficial other than temporary pain relief. If you can suck up a couple of hours, then you don't get any of the risks. That's my point.

>>676265

Probably Christian Scientist, Jehovah's Witnesses have always been more congenial to me than this- although it might have to do with the forum.

>>676265

<scientist/philosopher

Considering philosophy is against colossians 2:8 it ain't that one for sure. The other has 1 corinthians 3:3-7

>For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

>For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

>Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

>I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

>So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

and 1 corinthians 1:12-13 applied

>Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

>Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

<I am of Charles Taze Russell

<I am of the pope

<I am of luther

I am simply a Christian, a follower/disciple of Christ.

>>676268

Oh you are from reddit aren't you, lurk moar.

>>676269

Sidenote: charles is the founder of the jehovahs witness sect.

>>676269

I see. Well, if the modern world - what with all its medicine and civilization and such - bothers you so greatly that you'll sperg out this much in a thread where a soon-to-be parent asks for some advice from other parents, you might want to ditch that computer and go back to banging rocks together.

Otherwise, welcome to the discussion. How many children do you have?

>>676273

>banging rocks together

Not an arguement.

>How many children do you have?

Are you talking about galatians 4:21-31/matthew 12:47-50 or physical children? If galatians 4:21-31 then I've helped bear fruit to a few dozen possible's with ofcourse God being the hebrews 12:9 and I doing nothing in that department other then the watering type stuff because of 1 corinthians 3:3-9.

>>676271

>Oh you are from reddit aren't you, lurk moar.

Uggh, no, hate Reddit. The JWs I dealt with were on my doorstep.

>>676280

Just start a conversation about what they think about the end times and how they falsely think that God has taken the kingdoms of the world in revelation 11:15. When best, present revelation 6:9-11 and ask why they are alive if they are "their fellowservants and also their brethern, that should be killed as they were, should be fullfilled" has happened how they are still here. They either will repent or never talk to you again. Hopefully they repent.

>>676278

If you're male, you should have nothing but biological children, because those you help raise in God are your brothers and sisters, not your children.

"And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." - Matthew 23:9

I hope someday my children will be my brothers and sisters and will cease to call me father. But, that aside, your answer makes it pretty clear you don't have biological children.

OP started a thread for parents. Why are you sperging out and taking it off topic?

Also, your lack of coherent narrative while you toss out bible verses makes for a crappy argument- you've got your own pet interpretations you think are "obvious" but, from my perspective, it just seems you are spouting random scripture without understanding it.

>>676278

I see. So you're just here to derail. At least the good lord Jesus gave us the modern day filter by ID option.

>>674840

That's absolute nonsense.

Children have always followed the footsteps of their parents. Despite what your talmudic imagery.

None of what you said has any basis on reality, it's all fabrications of your head through implicit midiatic suggestibility. Why do you think there are so many movies about rebelling teens, and why is rock/rap music built around it.

Don't let your kids consume any midiatic content before majority and that is not explicitly Christian. Anyone here who does not adhere to this rule is ruled by images implanted by the ungodly. And I use ungodly here to not call them satanists.

>>676127

>My wife never wanted an epidural going in. She knew that it created complications and caused more C-sections. When the pains of labor were front and center, she wanted anything to make the pain stop- but I kept her focused, reminded her of her goal, got her to breath and count and we managed to get through without her demanding it from the nurses. She was very proud of herself afters, and very happy she didn't have one. Before labor started she didn't want it, after labor she was glad she didn't have it. Frankly, I don't think women in the midst of labor are cognizant enough to be entrusted with their own healthcare choices- if it's as overwhelming as they say, clearly they can't make a rational choice and there preferences -before- they were reduced to a state of crazy pain should be the ones guiding the physician. We normally don't allow patients not in their right mind to make decisions for themselves.

This is my wife's plan and mine. She's been doing exercised, but I am worried if I see her in such agonizing pain and she changes her mind I will agree with her. She has a medium frame and is in good shape though and from what I have seen has a high pain tolerance so I'm hoping it just doesn't get to that point.

>>675634

>Most of them are necessary. Don't put your kids health in risk for some autism with no medical support

>>674852

>Vaccines- Get them. Don't let an idiot tell you otherwise. So, 1st, let's say the moron was actually right when he found a correlation in that first autism-vaccine study. Even if he was right, the tiny % change of autism is better than the kids dying of whooping cough, measles, etc. Enough idiots aren't doing the vaccines now where you can't count on being a free-rider.

My main problem w/ vaccines was actually MRC-5 and WI-38 cultures. I understand it was a one time thing with each culture but it still troubles me that it is directly benefiting from an aborted fetus.

>>676510

>This is my wife's plan and mine. She's been doing exercised, but I am worried if I see her in such agonizing pain and she changes her mind I will agree with her. She has a medium frame and is in good shape though and from what I have seen has a high pain tolerance so I'm hoping it just doesn't get to that point.

If it's a real medical emergency, the doctor's will stop asking, they'll start telling. They'll try and push epidurals like a shifty crack dealer in an alleyway, ignore them. Your wife's pain will be awful to watch, but your job as a man is to stay strong for her, she's counting on you.

>My main problem w/ vaccines was actually MRC-5 and WI-38 cultures. I understand it was a one time thing with each culture but it still troubles me that it is directly benefiting from an aborted fetus.

I get your point but the facts was an aborted fetus didn't have to be used - adult stem cells are a thing. This tech could exist without abortion, it just doesn't because evil people run our medical field.

I feel you here, and the good the vaccine does doesn't outweigh the initial evil deed (especially since there were alternative methods) yet, all of that being the case, should we cause or risk more death because of evil? If good can be accomplished, let it be accomplished but never forget to argue against evil. Never say the way they made these vaccines was a good thing, but neither should we refuse good because one of the creators of the good made it with evil methods.

>>676763

This is by far the lamest attempt at trolling I've ever seen on this board, and I've seen many a lame troll in my day…

We do birthdays for all our kids, dummy. You just buy the bounce house instead of renting it, duh. Pays for itself in a year if you have enough.

>>676763

How about a better idea, just outright stop celebrating the customs of the heathen like birthdays and the pagen holiday of yule/xmas/(((christmas))) because jeremiah 10:2-5

>Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.

>For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.

>They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

>They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

Also since anything not of faith is sin romans 14:23, is there even a reason in the faith to celebrate pagen customs? No? So it is sin. Rather if you want to celebrate follow the example of the old testament feast days or luke 15:27-32

>And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.

>And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.

>And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:

>But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.

>And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.

>It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

>>676843

Are you a JW?

Christmas is alright because it's about Jesus' birth. The Christmas tree is just because it's pretty, it's not an idol. No one thinks the tree is a god or representative of a god anymore.

>>676845

>Christmas is alright because it's about Jesus' birth

Where does the bible say Christmas is alright because it's about Jesus' birth?

>>676854

Where in the bible does it say you can't celebrate Jesus' birth?

Look, nothing is unlawful. I admit some thing may not be beneficial but the spirit of Christmas: altruism, giving, celebrating Christ's birth- these things are certainly beneficial to the Christian. If some attendant carry-overs of paganism attach, but we don't worship them nor care about their significance other than motif, it's fine. Remember, nothing is unlawful, the only concern is usefulness.

>>676863

It's a sin to worship God in any way not in the bible

>>676872

Where in the bible does it say that?

>>676877

Ashes and Echoes

>>677426

Leviticus 10:1-3

>>677444

No, that says it's a sin to act in a way contrary to the Lord's commandments and is applicable specifically to the ceremonial law.

It says nothing about acting in a way which there is no command regarding it and in which way supports the spirit of the law.