Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Before 1930, All Christian Denominations Opposed Contraception

Posted on 02/17/2017 8:27:21 AM PST by pinochet

Before 1930, every Christian denomination opposed contraception. As a result, Whites were 36 percent of the world's population in 1900.

The combined population of India and China today, is 36 percent of the world's population. The percentage of Whites in the world's population in 1900, was similar to the combined percentage of India and China to the world's population today.

Western civilization in 1900, was not just dominant because of the West's science and technology. The West had demographic power, that gave Whites a majority in 3 continents (Europe, North America and Australia). Whites were a large minority in the 4th continent, South America.

In the US, the population increased from 5.3 million in 1800 to 76 million in 1900, an amazing 14 times increase of the population.

The fact that all Christian denominations opposed contraception before 1930, was an important factor explaining why Western civilization ended up ruling the world. By viewing its babies as blessings, Western civilization was deeply blessed by God.

Global politics is a numbers game. If the people of the West fail to reclaim the wisdom of their ancestors, Western civilization will die.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Philosophy; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: christianity; contraception
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last
Some people question the historical role of Christianity in Western civilization. Christianity enabled ethnic Europeans to own the entire world. The successor to ethnic Europeans are likely to be South Asians (Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, etc.), based on their scientific competence and demographic increase.
1 posted on 02/17/2017 8:27:21 AM PST by pinochet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pinochet

Before 1930, All Christian Denominations Opposed Contraception


I wonder why. It’s nowhere in the bible. There is a single story in the OT but that is because the guy was specifically told to impregnate the woman and he didn’t.

Sex is a need. Like food. And the OT message of “be fruitful and multiply” was replaced by Paul’s (i paraphrase) “it is better to remain single, but if you are horny, get married so you don’t sin.”

Nothing there about contraception being good or bad.


2 posted on 02/17/2017 8:31:11 AM PST by Mr. Douglas (Best. Election. EVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

What does our race have to do with anything?


3 posted on 02/17/2017 8:32:18 AM PST by Vermont Lt (Brace. Brace. Brace. Heads down. Do not look up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

Not much existed in the way of contraception in 1930.

Prehistoric condoms and some crude spermacides were about it. I doubt the topic even came up to anywhere near the extent it does today.


4 posted on 02/17/2017 8:33:26 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt
What does our race have to do with anything?

Was Western Civilization invented by Kalahari Bushmen?

5 posted on 02/17/2017 8:34:46 AM PST by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

Somewhere along the way people lost sight of the fact that children are a blessing from The Lord.


6 posted on 02/17/2017 8:35:34 AM PST by Rurudyne (Standup Philosopher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

What’s wrong with birth control?


7 posted on 02/17/2017 8:36:24 AM PST by mom4melody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pinochet
Not much existed in the way of contraception in 1930.

Agreed. This vanity post sounds like a KKK promotion on race.

8 posted on 02/17/2017 8:43:46 AM PST by aimhigh (1 John 3:23)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

BTTT!

We have been warned. Read Humanae Vitae.


9 posted on 02/17/2017 8:51:58 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

I have read Tolstoy’s “Anna Karenina”. There is a scene where Levin describes urban couples who in my comprehension sterilize themselves. This is related to Anna sterilizing herself after giving girth to her bastard child. Levin describes how unnatural it is.


10 posted on 02/17/2017 8:52:03 AM PST by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

>>>Not much existed in the way of contraception in 1930

Margaret Sanger opened her first birth control clinic in 1916. There was a lot of contraceptive knowledge around at that time, and most of it came from France. Christian churches were aware of contraceptives, and they preached against them.


11 posted on 02/17/2017 8:58:40 AM PST by pinochet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

Catechism of the Catholic Church

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.


12 posted on 02/17/2017 8:59:01 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mom4melody

See #9 and #12


13 posted on 02/17/2017 9:00:50 AM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mom4melody

>>>What’s wrong with birth control?

I am not passing judgement on career women who use birth control. I am just discussing the demographic situation as it existed before 1930.


14 posted on 02/17/2017 9:00:54 AM PST by pinochet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pinochet; newgeezer
Christian denomination opposed contraception. As a result, Whites were 36 percent of the world's population in 1900.

So Christianity is a white thing?

15 posted on 02/17/2017 9:02:16 AM PST by DungeonMaster (Love your neighbor as you love yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt

“our” race? What race is that? Is everyone here the same race?


16 posted on 02/17/2017 9:03:51 AM PST by bigdaddy45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

Yes but the track record of these Austrailoid Caucasian hybrids and the fact once they establish in the west or become more financially successful in their homelands their birth rate cliff dives

It’s a weird paradox but comfort and ease of life means fewer kids

Plus less agrarian pursuits do too

Btw yes I know Brahmin class Indians are considered white as me

And some are

To be honest I’m not that impressed

Neither them or Pakis much less Bangladesh are Japan or Germany smarts wise


17 posted on 02/17/2017 9:06:36 AM PST by wardaddy (trump is a great tourniquet but that's all folks.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

I think it is only the Amish, old older Mennonites, Catholics and some independents like the quiver full folks that haven’t accepted it yet. The Amish, old order Mennonites and Catholics haven’t accepted civil divorce and remarriage either to my understanding.

Freegards


18 posted on 02/17/2017 9:09:13 AM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh

>>>This vanity post sounds like a KKK promotion on race

My post never promoted the idea that any race is superior to any other. I credited the success of Western civilization to Europeans following old-fashioned Christian teachings, not to their biological characteristics.


19 posted on 02/17/2017 9:09:57 AM PST by pinochet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Douglas

Deuteronomy 30:19


20 posted on 02/17/2017 9:11:01 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

But, but - with no contraception, you can’t f*** who you want, when, where, and how you want while avoiding responsibility.

How could we survive?


21 posted on 02/17/2017 9:12:40 AM PST by Jim Noble (Die Gedanken sind Frei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster

>>>So Christianity is a white thing?

No. But before 1930, over 80 percent of Christians were White.


22 posted on 02/17/2017 9:13:42 AM PST by pinochet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

That scripture addresses the CI position in the CI vs ECT debate.

I don’t see it relating to contraception.


23 posted on 02/17/2017 9:20:11 AM PST by Mr. Douglas (Best. Election. EVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

It was a rhetorical question...


24 posted on 02/17/2017 9:28:47 AM PST by mom4melody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

I often say, “Wealth is the best environmental policy” (because only people with means can afford to care much about the environment) and “Wealth is the most effective contraceptive” (largely because people with means don’t need to reproduce simply to have a retirement plan).

It’s not that any race is in a race to breed themselves out. It’s that the wealthier people become, the fewer children they tend to have. There’s a knock-on effect, so to speak, because as more and more of the higher-wealth people have fewer and fewer children, it becomes fashionable not to have children, just as it has become fashionable not to smoke.


25 posted on 02/17/2017 9:41:41 AM PST by AZLiberty (A is now A once again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Douglas

Depends on whether you think God’s design of human sexuality was wise and normative, or arbitrary and changeable.

If the human design, linking male-female erotic attraction and fertility, is arbitrary or based on chance, then we are authorized to change it and reconfigure it any way we want: homosexuality, contraception, transsexualism, whatever seems right in your own eyes.

If the human design is wise and normative -— a good in itself —— we are not authorized by God to claim a right to disable, impair, or sabotage its essential nature.


26 posted on 02/17/2017 9:55:02 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Some learn by readin'... Some by seein'.. The rest have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

I’m no expert on the history of contraception, but there’s been abnormal non-procreative forms of copulation since Genesis. People have long used marital sodomy to avoid offspring.


27 posted on 02/17/2017 9:58:02 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Some learn by readin'... Some by seein'.. The rest have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mom4melody

Cintracsption de-sacralizes sex by substituting a different nonfunctional design, in place of God’s design. In effect, most contraception is based on the assumption that normal female fertility is a glitch, not a feature.

As if women were designed wrong-—by whatever idiot designed them, -— but we can fix that!

So it is from a JudeoChristian point of view, sacrilege; and from a Natural Law point of view, misogynistic and maiming: an intentional impairment or disabling of normal female physiological function.

ON THE OTHER HAND, methods of spacing or postponing pregnancy which do not sabotage natural fertility -— e.g. choosing go have intercourse at naturally infertile times of the cycle -— are more pro-whole-woman and not objectionable.


28 posted on 02/17/2017 10:11:42 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Some learn by readin'... Some by seein'.. The rest have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I just don’t get that legalistic about it.

For me, all things are ok, but not all things are profitable. Sex between me and my wife is a VERY good thing on a lot of levels. It is one of God’s greatest gifts, right up there with enjoying a really good Burger, or Bourbon.

Islam is the a “letter of the law” religion.
Christianity is a “spirit of the law” religion. He leaves the small decisions to us and asks us to consider the context.

My wife and I are over sixty, contraception is not an issue. It doesn’t mean God says we’re no longer allowed to have sex. And I can find no scripture that says that if you DO have sex with your wife in the fertile years, you are required to enable it to result in birth.

We have six kids. We were both altered to be sterile after that.

Burgers are great, and so is sex!


29 posted on 02/17/2017 10:11:58 AM PST by Mr. Douglas (Best. Election. EVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Douglas

I don’t see how my post was legalistic, unless regarding normal, natural, healthy sexual design as the norm, is some sort of bigoted imposition.


30 posted on 02/17/2017 10:18:12 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Some learn by readin'... Some by seein'.. The rest have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

The Amish population has basically doubled in the last 30 years or so to my understanding.

Freegards


31 posted on 02/17/2017 10:25:04 AM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

I didn’t mean your post. I just mean there is a lot of legalism read into the bible that simply is not there. Sex is a good example of that. My perspective is this: When a man and woman marry, they are free from sin, guilt or condemnation when they pleasure each other. If they do things to ensure it does not end in pregnancy, I don’t see anything in the bible that would even suggest that would be some sort of sin.


32 posted on 02/17/2017 10:44:50 AM PST by Mr. Douglas (Best. Election. EVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

I feel like “white” is being used as a synonym for “christian” in this article. That is pretty racist.

Do we want the world to be more “white?” Is that our goal?


33 posted on 02/17/2017 10:52:06 AM PST by Persevero (NUTS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Douglas

There is no Bible verse that condemns contraception.

There are many positive references to children, childbearing, children being a blessing, yes.

But lots of things are blessing also: like money, and food. But we shouldn’t just amass hordes of money or eat all day.

Some cite the story of Onan as a warning against birth control. Specifically instructed to get his sister in law pregnant to raise up seed for his brother, Onan used the withdrawal method. This was a sin. But it was a sin because he refused to obey a specific commandment.

So you have to use your own judgement about birth control, seeing God’s lauding of childbirth and multiplying, yet, seeing he has not specifically prohibited contraception.

And yes, in using your own judgement, do think on the fact that he who breeds, leads. A main source of dominion is reproduction, plain and simple.

Mom of five.


34 posted on 02/17/2017 10:57:36 AM PST by Persevero (NUTS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Douglas
From my perspective, you would have to screen out a lot of the Bible in order to say that disabling sexual intercourse to frustrate its normal function, is pleasing to God.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no instance of normal intercourse which is condemned in the Bible, but every instance of "altered" intercourse, whether between men, between women, or between a man and a woman where the act is contracepted--- is condemned. Every time.

If you can think of any exceptions, let me know.

The unanimity of the Bible on this point ought to tell us something. The unanimity of Christendom on this point for 1900+ years, ought to tell us something as well.

35 posted on 02/17/2017 11:24:30 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Keep on keepin' on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

For real?

Glad I’m Protestant.

I had fertility issues that made “natural” birth control impossible. And I sure did want a family of Duggars.

Do you advocate for modern medicine? God did give us a brain to development treatments and medicinal options.

And speaking of the Amish, I live near a large community...incest is a real issue...


36 posted on 02/17/2017 11:29:34 AM PST by mom4melody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

From my perspective, you would have to screen out a lot of the Bible in order to say that disabling sexual intercourse to frustrate its normal function, is pleasing to God.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no instance of normal intercourse which is condemned in the Bible, but every instance of “altered” intercourse, whether between men, between women, or between a man and a woman where the act is contracepted-— is condemned. Every time.

If you can think of any exceptions, let me know.

The unanimity of the Bible on this point ought to tell us something. The unanimity of Christendom on this point for 1900+ years, ought to tell us something as well.


I’m afraid I’m missing your point. Where in the bible is any sort of sex between a husband and wife condemned? I can’t think of a single place, other than in Genesis 38. And that was because a particular man was refusing to fulfill a specific duty of producing offspring for his brother. And even then, it wasn’t even about the sex act. It was about impregnation, specifically.

Did you ever read Song of Solomon. It’s not about procreation.


37 posted on 02/17/2017 11:30:05 AM PST by Mr. Douglas (Best. Election. EVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: mom4melody

Really incest amongst Amish

Bad as Indian reservations

Pity

I never imagined that


38 posted on 02/17/2017 12:03:16 PM PST by wardaddy (trump is a great tourniquet but that's all folks.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

Intersting all white locations are favorited by China?


39 posted on 02/17/2017 1:34:57 PM PST by keving (We the People)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Douglas
That "other than Genesis 38" is rather a big biggie. Here is a fine essay

Sin of Onan/Contraception

which shows that the failure to procreate relative to the levirate obligation, was not the only issue or even the main issue. If that were "it," both Judah and his youngest son Shelah would be liable to death, since they also did not fulfill the obligation with her. (Of course, until Tamar tricked Judah into it.)

But non-fulfillment of the levitate obligation in the OT did not incur the death penalty. It incurred a public shaming at the city gates. That was all.

What Onan did went beyond that: it deeply angered the LORD because it was a perverse act: going through the motions of intercourse while frustrating the natural fertility of the act.

The Song of Solomon is great. And, though it doesn't mention procreation, at no point does it disable or sabotage procreation.

40 posted on 02/17/2017 2:19:56 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Point of clarification.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Douglas
Well, as far as choosing is concerned, the opposite of life is death, regardless what those abbreviations mean.
41 posted on 02/17/2017 2:28:38 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mom4melody
"Do you advocate for modern medicine? God did give us a brain to development treatments and medicinal options>"

I do advocate for modern medicine, which is the opposite of contraception.

Ethical medicine targets disease, and restores or strengthens natural function.

Contraception (and related destructive interventions, like sex-reassignment surgery) targets and disables healthy organs, and intentionally impairs natural functioning.

Ethical medicine heals. Contraception-sterilization-sexchange surgery harms. It's intended to. It impairs normal sexual physiology.

And nothing requires non-contraceptors to have as many kids as the Duggars. My parents never practiced contraception, and had two children. My husband and I never practiced contraception, and we have one (homegrown!) and one adopted.

42 posted on 02/17/2017 2:28:54 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Point of clarification.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: pinochet

We are on the cusp of having artificial wombs. Wonder what kind of arguments that will generate.


43 posted on 02/17/2017 2:35:10 PM PST by BunnySlippers (I Love Bull Markets!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mom4melody

People who are for birth control, shouldn’t complain about illegal immigration. Decreased fertility costs a huge influx in immigration.


44 posted on 02/17/2017 3:59:04 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Douglas

If you believe that, stop complaining about illegal i immigration. And stop complaining if a culture you like is being erased. You are voting for it.


45 posted on 02/17/2017 4:04:09 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

So me not wanting a house load of kids caused pregnant Maria to waddle across the border....Right LOL


46 posted on 02/17/2017 4:49:22 PM PST by mom4melody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: mom4melody

Well, you are trying to put it glibly, but, yes. You can joke all you want, but it’s true. “House full of kids” What is the fertility rate of white, non-Hispanic people in the U.s.? 1.2? It’s way lower than replacement rate. Not a “houseful of kids.” Look, you can ignore G-d’s law all you want and laugh in His face. But actions have consequences.


47 posted on 02/17/2017 4:54:14 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

I’m not going to become a baby machine to preserve the white race.

That is offensive on several levels.

Those other races you’re so concerned with catching up, God made them too.


48 posted on 02/17/2017 7:05:13 PM PST by mom4melody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

My name is not Onan. I’m good.


49 posted on 02/17/2017 7:06:40 PM PST by Mr. Douglas (Best. Election. EVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: onedoug

Well, as far as choosing is concerned, the opposite of life is death, regardless what those abbreviations mean.
Exactly!

BTW, ECT means eternal, conscious torment.
CI means “conditional immortality”. IOW, only the saved have immortality. The lost experience, as you pointed out, death. And that condition is their penalty/punishment. And that condition will last for eternity. They ain’t comin’ back.


50 posted on 02/17/2017 7:09:15 PM PST by Mr. Douglas (Best. Election. EVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson