It amazes me that so many people call themselves Christians, but don’t believe the Bible. Perhaps I’ve been a bit too insulated in my world (I’m not complaining, by any means!), but the statement “My God wouldn’t do that” sounds foreign to my ears. I’ve heard it in many different ways, by different people, in different settings–my aunt was probably the first person I heard in person say it; but many people on the internet and my email groups will say this from time to time. This statement makes me wonder, just who is your god anyway?
Usually when people say “My god wouldn’t do that,” they are objecting to something that is in the Bible–prohibitions against homosexual behavior, women in leadership positions at church, the death penalty, sending people to hell, etc. If their god isn’t the God of the Bible, then who is their god? They will say they believe the Bible….just not certain parts of it. My aunt said she believed that the Bible as it was originally written was God’s absolute truth, but that “through the centuries” people had added in their own prejudices to it. She said, “I don’t believe Paul wrote that.” Another person through email said that she didn’t think it was God’s will that anybody be disempowered (meaning, I suppose, that women are expressly forbidden to teach in the church). So, who is her god, then?
If you say you are a Christian, then you are bound to believe the Bible; and if you believe the Bible, then you must act on it (otherwise it is not true believe, just mental acknowledgement). Why do you believe parts of the Bible and not other parts? Deists of the 18th century believed the Bible….just not the parts that showed God interacting with His creation, especially the miracles. They believed in “The Watch-maker God”–that is, that God set up the universe with certain rules, like winding a clock, and then let it go on its own. Why did they cut out the miracles? Because they were “Enlightened” and only believed in the natural, because the supernatural was beyond reason. Do you believe the miracles of the Bible, but not the prohibitions against homosexual behavior? Who is your god?
“Well, I believe that God is love, and God wants me to be happy, and [doing this] makes me happy.” Does God want you to be happy? Or does He want you to be joyful, and give Him glory? What if you found your happiness in molesting little children? Some people do (in some sick, twisted way). Are pedophiles allowed to do whatever they want, just because they get pleasure and gratification from it? “Well, that’s sick. I’m not a pedophile, I just…..” But what does the Bible say? “Well, I don’t like what the Bible says there, and I don’t think that’s right, so I don’t think it was what God originally said.” I encourage you to read Josh McDowell’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict, for a fuller explanation of the accuracy of the Bible as we know it (among other things, it states that almost every verse in the New Testament exists apart from the texts, in collections of letters and sermons and things from the early centuries).
The problem is not with the Bible, the problem is with people who don’t want to believe the Bible and obey it. They call themselves Christians, but they have sex outside of marriage, and have abortions, but think the death penalty is murder, and allow women preachers, and allow homosexuals to remain in the church and even to be preachers, bishops, etc. And all because “My god wouldn’t do that.” Psalm 50:21 says, “….you thought I was altogether as yourself…..” When people alter the Bible to suit their own preconceived notions, they bring God down to their level, so that they have a deity whom they can understand, and even control. This god is like a doting old grandfather letting his rambunctious grandchildren do generally whatever they want, because he just can’t bring himself to punish them. That is not the God of the Bible. This god is more like the ancient deities of the pagan and heathen cultures–a god of their own imagination.
In Joshua 24:15, we read this familiar passage, “….as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” But often, we don’t read the rest of the verse: “And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” In other words, if you’re not going to serve God (the one true and living God), then it doesn’t really matter who you do serve. So, who is your God?
This past week marked the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court. I’ve recently read several blogs hailing that decision, saying that they were encouraged by other abortion proponents to blog about it; and they in turn encouraged their readers to write further posts, as well as to support pro-abortion politicians, and other things to support the abortion agenda. So here is my small counter-post.
First, abortion is not about choice. If it were, they would promote women in their choice to have a child–but this so-called “choice” is not a two-way street–the only valid “choice” in their vocabulary is to choose abortion. If they were only promoting a woman’s right to choose, they would not deter people who attempt to persuade a woman to choose to carry her baby to term. If it were freedom of choice, then it should not make a difference if the woman sees an ultrasound of the baby, or sees pictures of how developed her baby is, or hears the baby’s heart beat. They hate that there are now laws designed to stem the flow of abortion, that require a waiting period and an ultrasound, because they know that most women who really know what is inside them and have to take the time to think about their decision will choose life.
Abortion is about money and power. There are a few women who gain a lot of power by other women’s abortions. By feeding into the “pro-choice” movement, and harnessing that power, a few top feminists hold an awful lot of sway nationally. Planned Parenthood is a powerful organization and makes a lot of money. It is estimated that over 1,000,000 abortions are performed annually in the United States. The average price is probably between $500-1000, which means that somebody is making between $500,000,000 and $1,000,000,000 every year by providing abortions. (That’s between 500 million and 1 billion dollars annually into the pockets of abortionists.) That’s a lot of money. No wonder abortionists champion the “woman’s right to choose” abortion. If nobody chose abortions, they’d be out of a job.
The latest blog I read that was pro-abortion decried the laws I mentioned above, and sneered at the paternalistic legislators who enacted the laws. She portrayed all women seeking abortions as being smart, confident people who know exactly what they want and don’t need any time to think–almost as if choosing an abortion is as easy as penciling in an appointment at a beauty shop. First off, that is horribly inaccurate. Many “women” seeking abortions are really just teenage girls who are scared out of their minds. Even if they’re adults, many women are terrified. (Here is a blog I stumbled across that illustrates what I am talking about–caution, this young woman uses profanity quite liberally, but it really touched me to hear this struggle. If you want to know the story without reading the many F-words….she’s a college student, unmarried, and has medical problems [unnamed, but potentially deadly if she continues her pregnancy]; likely can’t carry the baby to term anyway [possibly on medications that are contraindicated for pregnant women]; really wants children–just not now; is pro-choice, but feels like if she has an abortion she will be a murderer; and is near-suicidal with guilt over her choice of the abortion that she has not even had.)
The other pro-abortion blog I mentioned above further said that pro-life people must think women are too dumb to know what they want, if they think that enacting laws that require a woman to have a waiting period and/or an ultrasound prior to having an abortion. In all honesty, I say that pro-abortion people must think that women are too dumb to know that sex causes pregnancy. They portray abortion as the way to keep an unwanted child from being born, but they never talk about abstinence as the way to keep an unwanted child from being conceived.
Then they phrase it in terms of “reproductive rights” and say it’s not fair that men can have sex without pregnancy, but women can’t. I could very easily counter that it’s not fair that some women are infertile and can’t have children, while other women are fertile and choose to kill their babies. As my mother (and probably your mother, and grandmother, and great-grandmother) said, “Life is not fair.” The fact is, men can’t get pregnant; women can. Deal with it. If you’re mad that a man can have sex with you, make a baby, and then leave without consequences (which is less likely, now that child-support laws are stricter), the remedy for that is not to try to avoid the consequences yourself; the remedy is to keep your legs crossed so you don’t make a baby to start with. You want sex? Prepare to have an unintended pregnancy. No method of birth control is 100% effective (except abstinence). As Jeff Goldblum’s character said in Jurassic Park, “Life…..finds a way.” Don’t want to get pregnant? Don’t have sex. Period. End of story. You’re smart enough to figure that out.
I just happened across this guy’s blog today, and am in the process of reading every one of his posts. Just thought I’d spread the word, because so far, I can’t disagree with anything. I’ll be putting the link in my blogroll, but wanted to highlight it a little bit.
And here is the link to post #1, if you want to read them all in chronological order.
It’s kinda neat looking at the blog stats page and seeing what people searched for online to find your blog. This was one of the search terms, and it got me to thinking–what *does* the Bible say about it? I’ve not done extensive research into this question, so most of this is “off the cuff”; besides, I could have biases that blind me to some of the evidence, and I could misinterpret things. Please don’t set this up as your doctrine until you study it out for yourself.
First, the Bible is most clear that sex is to be only between a man and woman who are married to each other. All other forms of sex (premarital, extramarital, homosexual, bestiality) are clearly forbidden in both the Old and the New Testaments. It amazes me that there are people who claim to be Christians and claim to believe the Bible, who have no clue what the Bible says, or find loop-holes and exceptions where there are none, or believe that certain parts of the Bible are not accurate. (That is another subject, and I may take that up in a future post; for now, I encourage you to read Josh McDowell’s book Evidence that Demands a Verdict on the question of the authenticity of the Bible.) Now, on to the Biblical evidence.
In Gen. 1:28, God commands the newly-created man to “be fruitful and multiply.” As my dad used to say, if a man and his wife just have two kids, that’s not multiplication–that’s not even addition–that’s just replacement! (For the sake of honesty, right now, I have two children, ages 3 years and 19 months, and am not planning on more for a while.) As far as I can tell, that command has never been said to be fulfilled and no longer in force. I think the command to have children was in fact repeated to the Israelites when they were on the verge of entering into the land of Canaan to conquer it–to fill the land with their children, basically. Throughout the Old Testament, not having children was considered to be a curse, and having many children was considered to be a blessing (a few Scriptures that spring to mind are a couple of Psalms that allude to this–likening children to many arrows in the quiver, or like many olive shoots around the olive tree). One might argue that we humans have been fruitful and multiplied, and that we have filled the earth, so we don’t need to have lots of children now. Also, we are not an agrarian society, so children are a financial burden for many years more now than they were back in the old days when they might tend sheep or help in the fields.
From what I can remember of the New Testament, there is no positive directive for married couples to have children, but it is more or less understood that that would happen. One should be careful, however, when formulating one’s ideas, to make sure that a command is a command, and liberty is liberty. There are some who think that sex is only for the purpose of procreation; some who think that couples should always be trying to get pregnant; others think that one should never try not to have a child (even by periodic abstinence); and some try to have more control over their own lives. Some of these people take the line that God should be the one in charge of your family size, and to keep from conceiving a child is basically thumbing your nose at the sovereignty of God or something. My basic philosophy is, if you want to have children, go for it. If you don’t, first make sure that your reasons don’t violate commands of Scripture.
One problem I have with the philosophy that you should have no control whatsoever over how many children you have is that God did give us brains for some reason, and I think He wants us to use them. If we’re not allowed to decide how many children we want, are there any other similar decisions that we are sinning if we try to control?–who we marry, when we marry, what job we have, where we live…. The other problem I have with it is that there are some who truly cannot afford to have more children, yet intentionally try to have more (usually for religious reasons). Of course, nobody can really afford to have kids, by some estimates–that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the people who are on government assistance, or barely scraping by without it, perhaps even have declared bankruptcy or are contemplating it–and still planning on having more children. Now, that clearly violates the New Testament command of men providing for their families at the penalty of being “worse than an infidel” if do not.
Where does birth control fit into this? I believe that life starts at conception (numerous Scriptures speak of a woman “conceiving a son” not a blob of tissue that would become a son; also, John the Baptist was referred to as a living being when he “leaped for joy” in his mother’s womb), and therefore an already-conceived baby should be allowed to live if at all possible. I don’t have a problem with contraception (that is, preventing conception from occurring), but I do have a problem with drugs or procedures that can be considered abortifacients. There are a variety of contraceptives (spermicide, condoms and diaphragms; as well as “natural family planning” methods that include periodic abstinence to prevent conception); but everything else that falls under the name of “birth control” may in fact induce an abortion.
Most methods of birth control–hormones such as pills, injections, patches, etc., and IUDs including Mirena–work in one of two ways–blocking conception (by keeping the woman from ovulating, or the sperm from entering the uterus) or by keeping the fertilized egg from implanting. Hormones keep the uterine lining too thin for adequate blood supply for the embryonic placenta, and the IUD tends to “irritate” the uterus, making it slightly contract–not enough for the woman to feel it, but enough to expel an embryo. Still, pregnancy may occur using any method of birth control or contraception (except abstinence works every time it’s tried). If you are uncomfortable with abortion, you may very well need to be uncomfortable with birth control.
I suggest you google terms such as “natural family planning” and other methods of contraception and birth control, to find out what is best for you–after you know all of the benefits and risks of every option.
Today, I had to take our cat Jack in to the vet to be put down. He’s had some issues lately, but I think he got into something he shouldn’t have. Over the summer, he lost weight, which at first I attributed to his being outside a lot and running around (he usually loses weight in the summer); but then I took him to the vet and they said he likely had worms, and gave him some medicine. He seemed to do better, but within another few months seemed to be worse, so I got him some more medicine. This time it didn’t seem to help him much at all; but he didn’t get worse either. This past month or so, he’s gotten little scabs on his head and neck, and my husband and I were trying to figure out what had caused it–mites, nutritional deficiency, some weird health problem? We have another cat who is completely unaffected by whatever Jack had–in fact, he’s so fat he probably needs some worms (j/k!). We were thinking about getting some kitty vitamins, or wondering if we should take him into the vet. But he’s been pooping in the house (so we had to kick him out–sometimes entirely, other times letting him just into the laundry room where there is linoleum), and I didn’t want to spend a few hundred dollars on finding out what was wrong with him and fixing it (or not being able to), and have a cat that we can’t let inside. I was hoping for a kind of d-i-y solution. This morning, though, he was completely altered. I knew something was drastically wrong–that he was dying. Yesterday, he had spent all day curled up on this box in the laundry room, and I assumed that he had just found that to be a comfortable place to sleep, and got back up there after eating or whatever. Now, I think he had not moved at all. I found him on the floor behind the door, and he was cool to the touch but still breathing. When I picked him up, he meowed as if in pain, so my husband said we needed to put him out of his misery. (Jack was his cat, anyway, before we got married, so I knew I couldn’t make that decision without his say-so.) I really thought he would die by the time I got to the vet (after getting two toddlers and myself ready); and at one point on the car ride, I thought he had died. He was most pitiful. We made the right decision. He probably would have died in a few hours anyway, but I would have hated to have seen him suffer any more. Just a few days ago, he seemed his normal self–trying to run into the house every time we opened the door; but today he couldn’t even lift up his head. He was a good, sweet cat (until he started using the carpet as a litter box), and loved to curl up with us when we slept. We’ll miss him.
People don’t want to get better. They want a solution to their problems that does not require action or change on their part. They want the world to change so that they will feel better, without actually changing themselves so that they will feel better. I know that most people are just venting most of the time, when they are complaining, but that is wasted energy. I’ve tried it, and while it feels better for a little while, it always makes me feel worse afterwards. You relieve your feelings, only to find that they grow stronger. It’s as if talking about the petty problems puts a magnifying glass to the problems, and makes them appear bigger than they are. You just go over and over and over in your mind how this problem is affecting you, and then you think of more and more and more ways that your life would be so much better if only this thing were different, which makes how your life is now seem worse and worse and worse. But I daresay that if this one problem were solved, you’d find plenty of other problems to complain about just as bitterly.
It is not fun to be around people who complain all the time. For some people, that is their form of communication–they can’t just tell how they went shopping, they have to complain about the drive to the mall, the traffic there, the rude salesclerk, and the high price of clothes. They need to change that. It is increasing the bitterness and discontent in their own lives, to focus so much on how these little things irritate. Yes, traffic is irritating, but what can you really do about it? As the Serenity Prayer goes, “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.” You cannot change how stupidly or aggressively other people drive, but you can change how you drive, and ensure that you are not adding to the stupidity and aggression of traffic. When you focus on these people and their driving habits, you are actually mentally cataloguing them, and making it easier for you to react in anger.
Some things that affect you are other people’s sins; and I’m not saying that you don’t have the right to feel put-upon in these situations. But what you do about it and how you act are more important. You cannot change other people; you can change yourself. It just takes work–probably more hard work than you’re used to doing.
For example, one of my problems whenever I go to my mom’s is that she always has sweet things to eat–my “Achilles’ heel” in dieting–I love sweets. It is very easy for me to gripe and complain to her that she always makes all this good and fattening stuff….but the truth is that everything that I eat is put into my mouth by my own hand. It’s easier for me to complain about how she is sabotaging my diet plan than to see that I am the one who is actually the culprit, and that I need to exercise some self-control and not eat the cookies and candy and cake. (Although, I will say that the last time I went to my mom’s, I did not eat anything, so I can control myself. It just takes great effort.)
People want stuff quick and easy–that’s why they participate in get-rich-quick schemes, take diet pills or have surgery to lose weight, and complain about their problems instead of changing their attitudes towards their problems or making their problems go away. People don’t want to work hard for their money; they don’t want to work hard to attain and maintain a healthy weight and lifestyle; and they don’t want to do the hard work of changing themselves or their circumstances to improve their lives. They are focused on how their spouses need to change, their moms need to change, their bosses need to change, their kids need to change, strangers on the street need to change….. Instead of focusing on how they can change to meet the world as it is and not just survive, but thrive!
Complaining is easy; changing yourself is hard; changing others, however, is impossible.
Many Christians will “baptize” (that is, sprinkle water on) their infants, and believe that they are following the command of Scripture. I will refer such persons to a book by William Shirreff, entitled Lectures on Baptism. He lived probably about 150 years ago, and was a life-long Presbyterian, and a minister, until the end of his life when he began studying the practice of paedo-baptism, and came to the conclusion that it is not mandated nor even warranted by Scripture. He gave a series of lectures (compiled in this book) to those of his loving and beloved congregation who wondered how he could leave the Presbyterians and join himself to the Baptists, to explain his position, and to attempt to turn them from their error. While I agree with what he said, I make a further conclusion, and I think an important one.
Paedo-baptists (those who baptize, or sprinkle, their infants) will found their authority to do so based on the command given to Abraham to circumcise all of his offspring. Since it precedes the Law, I suppose that they believe that command to be still in force. (Click here for a fuller explanation of my position on that.)
Mr. Shirreff made many excellent points that are well worth considering, but I think that he allowed the waters to remain a little muddy in one point. The New Testament does liken baptism to circumcision (which Mr. Shirreff does allow). The point that I believe he leaves a little unclear is that all of the physical offspring of Abraham were to be circumcised, as a mark of their belonging to the Abrahamic covenant, just as all of the spiritual offspring of Abraham (otherwise called in the Bible, “true Israel,” “believers,” “the elect,” etc.) should be baptized, as a mark of their belonging to the New Covenant. The comparison holds. New believers are many times referred to as being in a state of spiritual infancy: in John 3 is the term “born again”; other passages mark a new birth, adoption, and newness of life, as well as Scriptures such as 1 Peter 2:2 which says, “as newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word…..” Here, then, is the comparison: newborn natural descendants of Abraham were circumcised, while newborn spiritual descendants of Abraham are to be baptized.
Mr. Shirreff shows in many ways that infants cannot fulfill the prerequisites of baptism given in the Scriptures, including being taught, believing, confessing sin, etc. Since they cannot give evidence of being spiritually alive (born again, spiritual infants), then they cannot receive spiritual circumcision, that is, baptism. He further points out that many (perhaps even most) of the babies who were sprinkled grew up to be reprobates. They gave great evidence to their not being Christian, not being believers, never having been born again. They certainly were not believers when they received baptism. The Bible clearly says that believers are to be baptized. In sprinkling infants, that clear command is being violated in two ways. Not only are unbelievers being “baptized,” but if any of these children do grow up to become believers, they are refused baptism as believers, because of their having been sprinkled as an infant.
Is sprinkling water or pouring water over someone “baptism”? No. I don’t care how far back you can trace the practice of sprinkling or pouring water over anyone–whether an adult believer or the infant of a believer–it does not go back to the Bible, and is therefore not Scriptural. First of all, the English word “baptism” (and all derivatives) is not a translation but a transliteration of the Greek word which means to dip or immerse. Translators of the Bible were primarily sprinklers (or the king in charge was), and to accurately translate this word would be to condemn their form of baptism. The first time that baptism is talked about in the New Testament, we see John the Baptist at the Jordan River. Why was he not beside a well, if all he needed was enough water to pour over someone’s head? Other times that baptism is described show similar amounts of water, including the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch (who was likely baptized in the Mediterranean Sea). In this account (Acts 8), it clearly says that both Philip and the eunuch went into the water. Why? If all that was required was for Philip to pour some water over the eunuch’s head, why was not a servant sent for a bowl of water? Nowhere is there a change outright described, nor even intimated.
The onus of proof rests with those who would countermand the clear words of the Bible, and change the obvious intent of what is stated by nebulous tangential arguments drawn from out-dated Old Testament practices and post-Biblical Catholic practices.
*Update* Since writing the above, I have finished typing out a pamphlet-sermon by Isaac Watts written in 1806 entitled, Infant Sprinkling No Baptism. It will soon be posted to the Mt. Zion PBC website, under “Articles and Books” (and there are many other works there, for your perusal). In the meantime, however, here is part of it which is pertinent to the last paragraph–that of when did sprinkling and/or pouring become used in place of immersion:
The church of Rome confesseth, by a learned pen, the Marquis of Worcester, in his Cortam. Relig. “The she changed dipping the party baptized over the head, into sprinkling upon the face.”That until the third century we find not any upon any consideration did admit of sprinkling.—The first we meet with is Cyprian in his Epistle to Magnus, L. 4. Ep. 7, where he pleads for the baptizing of the sick by sprinkling, and not by dipping or pouring, called the Clinical baptism. Mag. Cent. 3 C. 6 P. 126. As also for sprinkling of new-converted prisoners, in the prison-house; and which by degrees afterwards they brought in use for sick children also, and then afterwards all children. Here you see its origin and its progress, oh! how is fine gold become dim, and the pure gold changed, when men lay aside the commands of God, and follow the traditions of men. Admission of persons to baptism, who are not visible saints, is a profanation of an holy ordinance, to proclaim an agreement between Christ and Belial; concord between light and darkness; an abuse of God’s ordinance; the highway to make the people Atheists, and to believe nothing that God hath declared.
There are so many people suffering today–so many people hurting–and there seems to be no answers, no relief. Take a pill. Talk to a shrink. “You’re not sick, it’s other people’s fault.” “You’re sick, it’s not your fault.” These are answers? This is relief?
When someone has a recognized mental illness such as bipolar disorder, depression, schizophrenia, or is suffering while living in a lifestyle such as homosexuality, bisexuality, or some other sexually promiscuous lifestyle, the modern answer is that this person is “sick” or is suffering from an “illness” which is outside of themselves; or else that this person was born that way and can’t help it. But is that true? Does psychotherapy help? Is psychology the answer? Is someone depressed because of the way others treat him? Is someone bipolar because of a chemical balance outside of his control? Are you born “gay”?
First, psychology, psychiatry, and psychotherapy must be looked at without preconceived notions. What are the foundations of these “sciences”? And are the foundations true? Do they really help, or do people get better anyway? Is prescription medication the only answer? Is it even an answer at all?
First, medications may help; but I think they are only one small part of the answer. I don’t think they should be the first thing looked at; and so many people have been tried on so many different medications with little or no relief, that sometimes I wonder if they are any more help than a placebo. Just recently I read a blog from some guy who is seeing a new doctor and told her all the medications he had previously taken, and how they had done him no good; and her only answer was, “Well I will do a better job of prescribing medications for you than the previous doctors,” and proceded to write medications that he had previously tried that did not work. This is science? This is medicine?
As a Christian, I must look to the Bible first, and then look at other answers. I have just started reading a book by Jay Adams called Competent to Counsel, which looks at people’s problems–including mental disorders–from a Christian perspective. Actually, I have only read the introduction and am hooked. He details that he had almost no training or experience in counseling during seminary, and felt sorely incompetent to help people who came to him with needs. He took as much training as he could during grad school, but was disillusioned by the lack of help that Freudian psychology offered. Then he decided to look at what the Bible says about life’s problems. And found answers–answers that helped people, answers that gave relief.
This is one book in a line of books that I have recently read that just bring to the forefront how applicable the Bible is to any situation and every age. Other books that I have read include The Heart of Anger by Lou Priolo, The Power of a Praying Wife by Stormie Omartian, and Keep a Quiet Heart by Elisabeth Elliot.
The first thing to consider when confronting a problem is, “What does the Bible say about this?” If you think the Bible has nothing to say about real, physical (and mental) problems, and is just a book about heavenly and spiritual things, then think again. No, better yet, actually read it! If you don’t, then I’m sorry, but you will not get better. If you do not follow what God has to say–and He made you, so He knows best–then you are going to keep getting what you’ve been getting. If you’re sick and tired of being sick and tired, then why not look to the Bible to see what can be done? What do you have to lose? If medications and therapy and all the world has to offer hasn’t helped you, then you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by trying a totally different tactic.
Do you feel like you are in bondage to your homosexual, bisexual, or promiscuously heterosexual behavior? Do you feel like you are being bound by depression, bipolar disorder, eating disorders, anxiety, mood disorders, or anything else in the DSM? Do you want to be free?
The Bible says that if you give yourself over to a particular sin, you become bound by that sin–enslaved to it. Sin is your master, and you must do what it commands. You cannot break that bondage with a pill. Freedom won’t come from psychotherapy. Freedom comes from acknowledging your sin, and then breaking free from it (through Jesus Christ).
Wow. Who’d’ve thunk it? My younger son is wanting to go potty–he’s just 19 months old. I guess he wants to be like his big brother. I was a little tentative about doing this, but I figured, why not? The worst that can happen is that it doesn’t work and we stay in diapers until he’s older. (My first son potty-trained around 28 months–I had previously tried cloth training pants, but he didn’t seem to notice the difference between them and his diaper; then one day he happened to be in the house w/his diaper off [had just come in from playing in the sprinkler], and he looked all worried and said, “Oh, no, Mommy, pee-pee!” so I ran with him into the potty, and he went! So I let him go diaper-less when we were at home for several weeks. Now, he gets a dipe when he sleeps, because he usually pees first thing when he wakes up, and I don’t like changing sheets twice a day.)
I’ve heard of “elimination communication” or “infant potty training”–and actually tried it w/my younger son for about a month when he was about 4 months old. It worked well at night–every time he woke up, he peed; and I was about to start trying it during the day, too, when we moved and then came Thanksgiving’s travels, and it was just too much. Then I think it was just easier to change a diaper than really work with him on it, and I let it drop for over a year. Sometimes I’d think about “what if I had kept it up” but for the most part I figured “that ship has sailed” and didn’t worry over it.
So, my little guy woke up this morning about 5, and I was nursing him back to sleep when he started the wiggles, so I asked him if he wanted to go potty, and took him, and he went–and his diaper was dry, too! He happily went back to sleep (but was up and around for a while before I realized it this morning, so I didn’t take him potty first thing). But then I put him in the cloth training pants–it was easier than putting him in a diaper and pulling it off and putting it back on every time. And he stayed dry all day so far–and even pooped in the potty! Wow. He loves to climb up on the potty, maneuver himself on it, and then straddle and dangle. 🙂 He climbs up on the potty, gets down, climbs up again–just loves it. I hope I’m not starting any bad habit here, but I almost think it’d be worth it to have him potty-trained this young.
And it’s obviously something he wants to do–he has cried and pitched fits when I’ve taken him off the potty. I know that he might regress, once the excitement has worn off, but for now I’m still in hope that he might be actually on the road to being diaper-less. Yippee!
My 19-month-old son is wanting to potty-train. Blows my mind! I’m all for it, don’t get me wrong, but I’m completely flummoxed!
The other day, he was watching his big (3/y/o) brother go potty, and then he tried to climb up on the potty–which he can do, because he’s a climber. I started to pull him off, and then on a lark asked him if he wanted to go pee-pee in the potty. He smiled really big, so I pulled his diaper off and put him on….and he went. And today he did it again! Twice!! I’m going to have to train myself to get him on the potty, because I’d love to be done with diapers within a few months!
One thing that’s really weird to me, is that this evening what he did was get my attention by being bad (this particular time was the old squeeze his body between my legs and the sink while I’m washing dishes–one of his favorites). At first, I started to reprimand him, and then decided to ask if he wanted to go potty. He smiled, and headed for the bathroom, pausing a few times only to make sure I was still following him. By the time he got on the potty, his dipe was wet, but he still managed to squeeze a few drops out!
So now I’m going to have to first ask if he wants to go potty before assuming that he’s just being a brat. He’s trying to communicate, but I don’t speak his language! I have to learn!