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.
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?
>>>So Christianity is a white thing?
No. But before 1930, over 80 percent of Christians were White.
That scripture addresses the CI position in the CI vs ECT debate.
I don’t see it relating to contraception.
It was a rhetorical question...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
The Amish population has basically doubled in the last 30 years or so to my understanding.
Freegards
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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
Did you ever read Song of Solomon. It’s not about procreation.
Really incest amongst Amish
Bad as Indian reservations
Pity
I never imagined that
Intersting all white locations are favorited by China?
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.
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.