There is a article off of Boundless.com called "The Cost of Delaying Marriage" which talks about different things that are negative about our generation choosing to wait for marriage. One of them was brought up by a friend who is a marriage and family counselor working on her masters degree. There are several ideas taken from the book which can be considered extremely controversial such as that women are bored with men because they refuse to pursue a woman these days and that women should stop "glorifying" their single years as a chance to be closer to God because guys will be deterred from pursuing them.
The most controversial statement that is made in the book is this:

"It's only since the advent of pharmaceutical birth control that humans even had the option of choosing marriage while remaining closed to the possibility -- and blessing -- of children. And it's only since people started writing their own wedding vows that we stopped including the part about promising to receive children and raise them to know God."

The concept of whether of not we as couples should be practicing sex within marriage with birth control (either for a small period of time or for life in order to avoid children) is considered sinful based is very controversial. While there are many reasons given why a Christian woman can give about why she does not want to have kids, the question still remains, what does scripture say about it?

God orders us in the beginning to go forth and multiply and be fruitful, to take care of the grounds (in the garden), to labor for our food and shelter, and for women to have to have lots of pain in bearing Children while always wanting to control her husband but not being able to. These were basics of life.

In the NT we fall on some more ideals of what marriage is supposed to look like when Paul tells us it's best to say single and celibate but if one is "burning" with passion they should avoid the things that temps them and marry. This almost indicates that sex is the only reason to get married. He even goes on to say that those who do choose to marry will face many troubles in life and that he wishes to help them avoid that! This is, in the opinions of many only Paul's personal opinion on the topic of marriage. That same area of scripture however also says a man must give up his desires for God and that he has been paid for with the blood of Christ and your life is not your own and each man should stay where God puts him and go along with a life God has called them to.

The argument against the order of children in marriage is that this says nothing about having children and even says men shouldn't get married if they can stand not having sex.

The other concept is that marriage and sex are natural but children were a result of the fall. However there are very differing opinions on the interpretation of "increased pain in child bearing" should be interpreted. Some believe that it is saying increased meaning that it was already happening but without pain. Those who believe the opposite are saying that children are a result of sin and that sex is really all God desires for man in marriage and kids are a curse that we as humans received as a result of our sin.

Is sex really the only thing God wants man to be married for? Are kids really just a result of sin that is our punishment for our screwing up? Is it disobedience and "getting out of the curse" to use birth control in order to avoid children because for whatever reason, someone just doesn't want kids?

I would like to say that the world is coming to an end. Yes, ask most Christians about a one world government and they will shake in their boots thinking about the end times. Well apparently in December our President plans on traveling to Copenhagen to sign a treaty which is about the global environment. The aim of this treaty is to put a body together, a new part of the UN if you will, that will be able to govern every country who signs it as far as tax, economics, and environment is concerned. The third world countries will all sign it because basically the treaty states that all of us bigger countries will have to pay them who are in the treaty because we are destroying their atmosphere with our CO2 output while they are putting out little or none. In fact, there really hasn't been any show of resistance by any country to this bill. They haven't been talking about it in the news, and haven't really even announced it's being signed. The Wall Street Journal published an article on the concern for our freedom being lost with the signing of this treaty because of the fact that we wouldn't be able to get out of the treaty in the future because in this kind of treaty all the other countries must agree to let you out. With the U.S. being the leading CO2 emitter, we are forced to pay the most out for our role in "destroying the atmosphere," it is unlikely we will be let out. Also, this treaty will always take precedence over our very own constitution because of the nature of the treaty and the duty we will then have to the U.N.

"To be sure, countries that sign international treaties always cede powers to a U.N. body responsible for implementing treaty obligations. But the difference is that this treaty appears to have been subject to unusual attempts to conceal its convoluted contents. And apart from the difficulty of trying to decipher the U.N. verbiage, there are plenty of draft clauses described as "alternatives" and "options" that should raise the ire of free and democratic countries concerned about preserving their sovereignty."
-The Wall Street Journal

This concern is brought up because of The Supremacy Clause found with in the US Constitution (Article VI, paragraph 2). This clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. TREATIES as the supreme law of the land.In fact this concern has come up before. Check out this article from a 1953 Time Magazine that talks about how they wanted to create the Bricker Amendment to prohibit this kind of treaty over ridding the Constitution of the U.S, however it didn't pass.

Though many people seem to object saying this could never happen, the same people fail to address the things stated in the treaty.

Click to read the actual Treaty Document in it's entirety.

Click to find out about this Global Climate Scam.

Click to see what Obama said to the U.N. on this topic (Climate Change).

To hear more from Lord Monckton, the former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, who gave this speech to Bethel University see part one and part two.

A Sex offender in North Carolina is filing a law suit after he was arrested for attending a church in March. Why? Sex offenders are swarmed with rules and regulations upon their conviction an release. There are zones and actual places, like churches, that they aren't allowed going to because of the presence of minors. When these offenders are on the streets, they are very restricted as to how close they are to the presence of children. The man was arrested for going to church because this church had a daycare center in it. He is not the only one who is following the trend of sex offenders protesting the current laws dictating their lives. Georgia's Southern Center for Human Rights is sueing the state because of this and some other issues addressing the rights of 16,000 + sex offenders in that state.

"Criminalizing the practice of religion for everyone on the registry will do more harm than good. With these laws, states are driving people on the registry from their faith community and depriving them of the rehabilitative influence of the church." -Sara Totonchi, policy director for the Southern Center for Human Rights.

Now, it is very important for us to protect minors by limiting what kinds of communities these people can live in, such as how far they live from schools (especially elementary) because many kids have to walk to school for lack of bus service through the schools. 32 states have set up zones in which these offenders are not legally allowed to live including church areas. Having sex offenders in or even around churches is a big deal because there are many children running the halls of most church buildings. However, if we ban sex offenders from church, how can they heal. I hear the argument all the time that television preachers aren't good enough mainly because church is supposed to be 3 things, 1. the fellowship of believers (fellowship/having fun/socializing) 2. Corporate Worship and prayer (coming together as a larger body to worship and pray) 3. Establish and execute ministry of both internal and external focus.

If we separate any sinner from the first 2, they will not be able to grow completely in the Body of Christ. They, like many Christians today, become bitter and angry with the church, and eventually begin to conform to the world and when trials come along are more vulnerable to attack and failure. Now that's not necessarily because they don't go to church, but because they are removed or have removed themselves from the constant fellowship and uplifting of fellow Christians. The third is controversial, but as long as the ministry has nothing to do with kids, like the nursery, children's program, or Youth Group there shouldn't be an issue as far as minors are concerned. Plus most people agree that for the most part those sex offenders who participate in Church are more likely to complete a more successful assimilation into the community again which usually leads to less cases of offenses in the future.

"It's not clear that there's any public-safety purpose to these laws. They continue to ostracize previous sex offenders in a way that could be dangerous in the end. If they can successfully transition to the community, to include going to church, they are less likely to reoffend." - Sarah Tofte, Human Rights Watch legal researcher.

While we should definitely limit activity of such offenders there has to be a place for them somewhere when it comes to the body of Christ! If a person commits a crime and gets saved afterwards, repents of his sins and God changes him, he completes his punishment, and is released who are we to say they can't go to to church! As long as the pastor and leaders are aware of the persons status as a sex offender, there should be no problem. That will all most definitely become an issue though because gossip among church people is ridiculous. Someone is bound to sue the church at some point for spreading the word, even though they aren't supposed to. Ultimately I feel it comes down to this one question, cliche as it may be, What Would Jesus Do?

How do you think we should handle sex offenders and the church? Should the state be able to "Criminalize" the religious practices of sex offenders or does this offend the constitution? Do you think these offenders have given up their rights so it really doesn't matter?

Check out more on this topic.