What are your views on contraception?

n57oxds38gt6cz wrote: »

Of course. Women with children would rather be at home. Women without children would rather work. That's fine.

And should women without children, who would rather work (or indeed, the 40% of women with children who would also rather work*), not be free to remain that way by using contraceptives?

*assuming, for argument stats are actually correct.

I have already explained of ways to feed our families healthily and have plenty left over.

quickbeam wrote:

And should women without children, who would rather work (or indeed, the 40% of women with children who would also rather work*), not be free to remain that way by using contraceptives?

Contraceptives are contrary to God's Law. I have explained why this is in various posts.

wench

n57oxds38gt6cz wrote: »

Contraceptives are contrary to God's Law. I have explained why this is in various posts.

If god truly wants me to get pregnant, surely a small bit of latex wouldn't stop him?

The J Stands for Jay

n57oxds38gt6cz wrote: »

Unfortunately most parents have to work to pay scandalous mortgages. The children are farmed out to creches during the day. The proper persons to raise children are the parents, not some stranger. But in order to feed the great god mammon, mothers as well as fathers have to work. This is not the plan that God designed.

I would agree with the notion that children should be raised by their parents, but who can afford that now?

frag420

frag420 wrote: »

What about threesomes? Two men and a woman and the seed from both is ejaculated into her vagina?

What about two women and one guy? Can they share the seed if it’s not spilt?

Any sinning happening here?

Asking for a friend obviously...

I forgot to mention that the guys won’t cross swords and the women won’t rub fannys so it will be 100% heterosexual threesomes, a Christian threesoem if you will?

So OP, what’s the story with this scenario?

This is the bind we are in. The rulers of the world want everyone to be measured only as an economic unit. The ravenous banks have tried to destroy the family unit, the foundation of society. The evil moneymakers! Truly they have their reward. But God will never allow them to succeed. We pray that Almighty God will soon intervene and bring all their corrupt deeds to nought.

n57oxds38gt6cz wrote: »

This is the bind we are in. The rulers of the world want everyone to be measured only as an economic unit. The ravenous banks have tried to destroy the family unit, the foundation of society. The evil moneymakers! Truly they have their reward. But God will never allow them to succeed. We pray that Almighty God will soon intervene and bring all their corrupt deeds to nought.

What's he waiting for?

n57oxds38gt6cz wrote: »

This is the bind we are in. The rulers of the world want everyone to be measured only as an economic unit. The ravenous banks have tried to destroy the family unit, the foundation of society. The evil moneymakers! Truly they have their reward. But God will never allow them to succeed. We pray that Almighty God will soon intervene and bring all their corrupt deeds to nought.

Well he's done feck all up to now so why do you think he gives a toss

frag420

n57oxds38gt6cz wrote: »

This is the bind we are in. The rulers of the world want everyone to be measured only as an economic unit. The ravenous banks have tried to destroy the family unit, the foundation of society. The evil moneymakers! Truly they have their reward. But God will never allow them to succeed. We pray that Almighty God will soon intervene and bring all their corrupt deeds to nought.

If he hasnt intervened in priests raping kids then I hold out no hope he will intervene to stop corruption!?

eviltwin wrote:

Well he's done feck all up to now so why do you think he gives a toss

Have faith and believe.

quickbeam wrote:

What's he waiting for?

We do not know the day nor the hour. He will come suddenly, when we least expect Him. Like these times.

One eyed Jack

McGaggs wrote: »

I would agree with the nation that children should be raised by their parents, bit who can afford that now?

Anyone can afford to raise their own children, and those that say they can't, simply don't want to. I have no issue with anyone who wants to have whatever lifestyle and expectations they want, but when I hear parents complain that they "have" to work for the implied sole purpose of paying anyone else to mind their children?

No they don't "have" to do any such thing, they choose to, hell of a difference. This idea that parents can't afford to raise their own children, where does that come from? I'd genuinely love to know because I'm certainly able to afford to raise my own child, he was never put in a creche, started school like all the other children and excelled academically, socially, by any measure you'd care to think of, so the idea that parents can't afford to raise their own children, especially in this country, is just... I dunno, there's no polite way to say it just sounds like an excuse for something else tbh.

And everyone will be caught unawares.

Mrs OBumble

n57oxds38gt6cz wrote: »

In a recent survey 60% of the working women would rather be at home rearing their children than be slaving on a conveyor belt.

Of course they would: following God's will as outlines in Proverbs sounds exhausting. Nevertheless the Bible has given a clear indication of how a wife should behave. Is it really prudent to ignore that, just because of a personal preference?

By then it will be too late. Now is the time to follow His Law.

lawred2

n57oxds38gt6cz wrote: »

Remember the list of those who will not enter the Kingdom of God. Fornicators are high on the list. A fornicator is one who sins against his own body.

As was written by someone somewhere in a book...

Probably cracking his hole laughing at the thought of someone taking such unhuman twaddle seriously centuries later

n57oxds38gt6cz wrote: »

We do not know the day nor the hour. He will come suddenly, when we least expect Him. Like these times.

I don't expect you to know the date or anything. But still wondering what he's waiting for. I mean, how bad does it have to get? And are we looking at terms of days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, millennia? Surely there's some indication of whether it'll happen in the short, medium, or long-term?

I would say it is very close. Closer than we know.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Anyone can afford to raise their own children, and those that say they can't, simply don't want to. I have no issue with anyone who wants to have whatever lifestyle and expectations they want, but when I hear parents complain that they "have" to work for the implied sole purpose of paying anyone else to mind their children?

No they don't "have" to do any such thing, they choose to, hell of a difference. This idea that parents can't afford to raise their own children, where does that come from? I'd genuinely love to know because I'm certainly able to afford to raise my own child, he was never put in a creche, started school like all the other children and excelled academically, socially, by any measure you'd care to think of, so the idea that parents can't afford to raise their own children, especially in this country, is just... I dunno, there's no polite way to say it just sounds like an excuse for something else tbh.

<snip>

sparksfly

n57oxds38gt6cz wrote: »

We are entitled to sexual activity which befits us as God's children. This means that the full ejaculation of the male must be deposited in the female. This naturally bans all sexual activity which results in the spillage of the ejaculation.

Tommy Tiernan could have a field day with this.

n57oxds38gt6cz wrote: »

I would say it is very close. Closer than we know.

Put it like this, should I put notice on my savings account?

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

<snip>

Which part, or all of it?

I didn't put my child in a creche for starters, so how that's bullshìt I don't know.

I'm well aware of the cost of childcare, which parents could save themselves if they chose to stay at home and raise their own children, so the idea to me that anyone has to work to pay someone else to raise their children while they work, has more to do with lifestyle choices than it has anything to do with economic necessity.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Which part, or all of it?

I didn't put my child in a creche for starters, so how that's bullshìt I don't know.

I'm well aware of the cost of childcare, which parents could save themselves if they chose to stay at home and raise their own children, so the idea to me that anyone has to work to pay someone else to raise their children while they work, has more to do with lifestyle choices than it has anything to do with economic necessity.

A lot of it. There are people stuck with mortgages they could not cover on one wage. I'd know one or two in that situation. These aren't necessarily people with children, just people stuck with a house they bought when things were going well who are now no longer in that position.

And what's wrong with creches? I've got my youngest in one after school, he loves it and it's been a really good experience for him. The kids all seem happy, you'd think they were all crying for their parents the way some people go on.

I'm all in favour of children being raised at home where possible and where desired but I don't subscribe to this notion that childcare is bad or that working parents are lazy.

endacl

n57oxds38gt6cz wrote: »

I would say it is very close. Closer than we know.

And I’m back in! Oweny. A point along any dimensional measurement cannot be defined in relation to an undefined one. Or an unknown one. This has nothing to do with theology. You’re just posting demonstrable baloney now.

I’d have let you away with ‘closer than we think’, closer than we imagine’, or ‘closer than we estimate’. Even though ‘we’ in this instance is also lamentably nebulous....

However, amidst all the nonsense you’ve been spouting, that we may have had to accept as your faith based opinion, your personal-biases based opinion, or, let’s face it, your probable trolling, that statement displays what can only be accurately described as ‘a fundamental lack of understanding as to how things work’.

Bad effort. Must harder.

Cabaal

n57oxds38gt6cz wrote: »

We do not know the day nor the hour. He will come suddenly, when we least expect Him. Like these times.

Times like these?
Cool, so the murder of 6 million of god's chosen people in the space of about 5 years wasn't bad enough....nope, he hates bankers more
:rolleyes:

Cabaal

eviltwin wrote: »

And what's wrong with creches? I've got my youngest in one after school, he loves it and it's been a really good experience for him. The kids all seem happy, you'd think they were all crying for their parents the way some people go on.

I'm all in favour of children being raised at home where possible and where desired but I don't subscribe to this notion that childcare is bad or that working parents are lazy.

There's nothing wrong with creches, fantastic for socialization with other children. Also when I went to school baby infants covered ABC's...now thats all covered in creche and if a child goes to school without this stuff they are behind.

These days children that stay at home until they reach first year of school are socially stunted in comparison to kids that go to creche, they also have been exposed to far more germs to build immunity against then if they just stayed at home with their mother.

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

A lot of it. There are people stuck with mortgages they could not cover on one wage. I'd know one or two in that situation. These aren't necessarily people with children, just people stuck with a house they bought when things were going well who are now no longer in that position.

That doesn't make what I said bullshìt though? It doesn't explain anything. So people got mortgages they can now no longer afford, and how does that relate in any way whatsoever to parents who say that they have to work to pay for childcare because they can't afford to raise their own children?

I'm sure you're aware of many more parents who don't have mortgages at all and choose to raise their children themselves on a lot less money, and are just as capable of raising their children themselves without paying for their children to be raised by anyone else.

brianblaze

n57oxds38gt6cz wrote: »

I would say it is very close. Closer than we know.

Ah here I had plans this weekend....

What's your mathematical thinking? Will the big fella be reading our Web histories? :-/