Early Christianity was anti-natalist

[Estro Felino]

I mean...countless passages, especially from the Pauline Epistles and Acts suggest that the Church, the Christian Church of the origins used to preach a sort of moderate anti-Natalism. That is, it dealt with people who practiced ascesis, catharsis, abstinence from sex and so on.
Saint Paul himself was unmarried and childless and used to say: I wish you were all like me.
And he also underlined that marriage had to be only the result of true authentic love.

Then...what happened? That the Church was inglobated into the political power, it became an instrument of power.
And since the Empire needed slaves to exploit (In the fields, I mean), I mean...they needed lay people to procreate, so they told Christians that chastity and virtue were just for the saints and the priests, whereas the layman was supposed to get a bride a procreate more Christians.


This is just an assumption...a theory. I am ready to recognize I was wrong.

 

[PearlSeeker]

The early Christians lived in the belief that the end of the world would soon come upon them, and saw no point in planning new families and having children. According to Chadwick, this was why Paul encouraged both celibate and marital lifestyles[28] among the members of the Corinthian congregation, regarding celibacy as the preferable of the two.[28] (Wiki)

 

[Estro Felino]

The early Christians lived in the belief that the end of the world would soon come upon them, and saw no point in planning new families and having children. According to Chadwick, this was why Paul encouraged both celibate and marital lifestyles[28] among the members of the Corinthian congregation, regarding celibacy as the preferable of the two.[28] (Wiki)

So...I was right?

 

[Heyo]

So...I was right?

Partly. There were sects more radical than Paul, basically promoting self-extinction. Others argued that they had a god-given mandate to "be fruitful and increase in number".

 

[Brickjectivity]

"The early theologian Clement of Alexandria maintained that Paul was married and upheld the institution in his Miscellanies Book III." --The Atlantic Behind paywall. HTTP to follow in code​

https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2010/04/were-jesus-and-paul-celibate/188392/

​

Its not a settled issue whether Paul is or is not permanently celibate or whether he is suggesting it is superior, because we don't have the letter he is responding to with I Corinthians. There is also what Clement says. Also in the passages about abstinence Paul refers to a "Present crisis." (I Corinthians 7:26 NIV) The nature of this crisis is unclear as Paul is responding to a letter we do not have, but in times of crisis people do abstain. It does not make them permanently celibate.

For thousands of years people have lived through reproduction but have suspended it in times of crisis.

A relevant passage quoting Jesus is:

"[Luk 23:28-29 NIV] 28 Jesus turned and said to them, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 For the time will come when you will say, 'Blessed are the childless women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!'​

Notice that Paul's "Present crisis" could very well be alluding to the exact crisis to which Jesus refers.

 

[Estro Felino]

Partly. There were sects more radical than Paul, basically promoting self-extinction. Others argued that they had a god-given mandate to "be fruitful and increase in number".

Yes. In the three centuries preceding the Council of Nicaea so many sects or versions of Christianity developped.
But the mainstream one, the most frequented was the one that promoted ascesis and childlessness. Also because it had to compete with the Cybele-Attis religion, with Mithraism, with Isis-Osiris religion, and many others promoting several practices of ascesis.

 

[Estro Felino]

"The early theologian Clement of Alexandria maintained that Paul was married and upheld the institution in his Miscellanies Book III." --The Atlantic Behind paywall. HTTP to follow in code​

https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2010/04/were-jesus-and-paul-celibate/188392/

​

Its not a settled issue whether Paul is or is not permanently celibate or whether he is suggesting it is superior, because we don't have the letter he is responding to with I Corinthians. There is also what Clement says. Also in the passages about abstinence Paul refers to a "Present crisis." (I Corinthians 7:26 NIV) The nature of this crisis is unclear as Paul is responding to a letter we do not have, but in times of crisis people do abstain. It does not make them permanently celibate.

For thousands of years people have lived through reproduction but have suspended it in times of crisis.

A relevant passage quoting Jesus is:

"[Luk 23:28-29 NIV] 28 Jesus turned and said to them, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 For the time will come when you will say, 'Blessed are the childless women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!'​

Notice that Paul's "Present crisis" could very well be alluding to the exact crisis to which Jesus refers.

That's a very good interpretation.
I repeat it, mine is just an interpretation.

 

[Glaurung]

While it's true that the early Church encouraged celibacy as the higher calling, I think it's overstated to claim that it discouraged the having the children. Also, the suggestion that the Church had conspiratorial intent in allowing marriage is downright silly.

 

[Estro Felino]

Also, the suggestion that the Church had conspiratorial intent in allowing marriage is downright silly.

No...I think it's just realistic.
I don't know if you have ever studied the Investiture Controversy between Papacy and HRE. It shows how cynical the Church was.

 

[Glaurung]

No...I think it's just realistic.

No, the claim that the Church only permitted marriage so as to prop up the empire's workforce is beyond silly.

Paul is clear that there is no sin in choosing to marry over staying celibate. As per the teachings of Christ: marriage is a natural good intended by God. Man shall cling to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.

 

[1213]

I mean...countless passages, especially from the Pauline Epistles and Acts suggest that the Church, the Christian Church of the origins used to preach a sort of moderate anti-Natalism. That is, it dealt with people who practiced ascesis, catharsis, abstinence from sex and so on.
Saint Paul himself was unmarried and childless and used to say: I wish you were all like me.
And he also underlined that marriage had to be only the result of true authentic love.

Then...what happened? ...

I think Paul thought that it is better, because less worries. But i don't think he was against marriage and having kids, for example because he said:

But the Spirit says expressly that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron; forbidding marriage
1. Tim. 4:1-3

The overseer therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, modest, hospitable, good at teaching;... ...one who rules his own house well, having children in subjection with all reverence;
1 Tim. 3:2-4

 

[Estro Felino]

I think Paul thought that it is better, because less worries. But i don't think he was against marriage and having kids, for example because he said:

But the Spirit says expressly that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron; forbidding marriage
1. Tim. 4:1-3

The overseer therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, modest, hospitable, good at teaching;... ...one who rules his own house well, having children in subjection with all reverence;
1 Tim. 3:2-4

Euripides, Medea 1276

Often, before this present time,
I’ve had to make more complex arguments
and struggled with issues more serious
than those which women ought to wrestle with.
But we, too, have an artistic Muse
who lives among us to teach us wisdom.
But not all of us—the group of females
who can learn anything from her is small—
in a crowd of women you might find one.
So I can claim that among human beings
those who have no experience of children,
who have never given birth to offspring,
such people have far more happiness
than those who have been parents.
With those who have no children,
because they never come to see
whether their children grow up
to be a blessing or a curse to men,
their failure to have offspring
shields them from many grievances.
But those who in their own homes
have a sweet race of children growing,
I see them worn down with cares
their whole life long. First,
how they can raise their children well.
Next, how they can leave their sons
sufficient livelihood. And then,
it’s by no means clear that all the work
produces good or useless children.
There’s one final problem,
the worst for any mortal human being—
I’ll tell you: suppose those parents
have found a satisfactory way of life
and seen their children grow
into strong, young, virtuous men, if Fate so wills it, Death arrives,
and carries the children’s bodies
away to Hades. What profit, then,
is there for us and our love of sons,
if the gods inflict on mortal men,
in addition to their other hardships,
this most painful further sorrow.

 

[1213]

Euripides, Medea 1276

Often, before this present time,
I’ve had to make more complex arguments
and struggled with issues more serious
than those which women ought to wrestle with.
But we, too, have an artistic Muse
who lives among us to teach us wisdom.
But not all of us—the group of females
who can learn anything from her is small—
in a crowd of women you might find one.
So I can claim that among human beings
those who have no experience of children,
who have never given birth to offspring,
such people have far more happiness
than those who have been parents.
With those who have no children,
because they never come to see
whether their children grow up
to be a blessing or a curse to men,
their failure to have offspring
shields them from many grievances.
But those who in their own homes
have a sweet race of children growing,
I see them worn down with cares
their whole life long. First,
how they can raise their children well.
Next, how they can leave their sons
sufficient livelihood. And then,
it’s by no means clear that all the work
produces good or useless children.
There’s one final problem,
the worst for any mortal human being—
I’ll tell you: suppose those parents
have found a satisfactory way of life
and seen their children grow
into strong, young, virtuous men, if Fate so wills it, Death arrives,
and carries the children’s bodies
away to Hades. What profit, then,
is there for us and our love of sons,
if the gods inflict on mortal men,
in addition to their other hardships,
this most painful further sorrow.

Nice, shows well what sorrows one could have. But, perhaps all the positive matters makes it worth it.

 

[Estro Felino]

Nice, shows well what sorrows one could have. But, perhaps all the positive matters makes it worth it.

That's right.
But...I guess people should think about it twice.

 

[PearlSeeker]

So...I was right?

Partly. If your second assumption was right the Church wouldn't condemn Jovinian.

Jovinian - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Jovinianism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org