Now some of you may be asking why I say that, after all, isn't the church so supportive of families? This is true, but my question to you then is why?
>after life is eternal and outside of this material world
>Jesus even says not to invest your heart in worldly things (the body is a worldly thing, creating children is investing in worldly things too)
>Ergo in Christianity, there is no purpose in perpetuating the human race
Think of it, if you procreate, that is another body in which a soul somehow manifests, you are damning this child to the life long struggle of good and evil, of righteousness and sin. Instead, you could spiritually perfect yourself and help others so that you all may enter into heaven upon death. Thus, humanity no longer must engage in the struggle of remaining in God's graces.
Does this concept not make sense in a Christian worldview? To me, Christianity deep down is very anti-world and anti-life.
Genesis 1:28 "God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
Christianity is not antinatalist. Children are seen as a gift from God, as if life for that matter which is why murder is a sin.
>>1078628
Ok but the old law is irrelevant is it not? Did Christ not say that he came to fulfill it? The new covenant creates no imperative for being fruitful and multiplying. This Genesis account was written for the Hebrews too, so it doesn't really stand.
As an addendum, it is not written that NOT procreating is a sin. To me, the new testament seems to support the antinatalist view, it was actually quite common among some early Christian sects, most notably the Marcionites. My guess is that Rome didn't like the idea of people not procreating so it had to be quelled.
>>1078654
The quote is from Genesis so it doesn't really fall under Mosaic Law.
And while I can't really find any explicit call to procreate in the NT, Mary does say in Luke that generations will call her blessed, and that wouldn't work out if people don't have kids, does it?
>>1078816
>and that wouldn't work out if people don't have kids, does it?
I don't think it matters, it's not implied that it's an imperative that numerous generations must come into being in the future.
But once again, I don't think the genesis account is a command to Christians.
>>1078841
How does it not matter? Mary is making a prophecy, and to this day it's true. It simply could not be true if there were no more Christians to call her as such. Furthermore, we do have a direct command from Jesus to go forth and make disciples of all nations. Again, if there are no Christians, how can we make disciples? It might not be an explicit command but it can inferred.
And why shouldn't the command form Genesis matter? It is true that we are no longer bound to the letter of the law that was the Old Covenant because Jesus fulfilled it. But the spirit of the law is important enough to Christians that Jesus reiterates it and summarizes all the law in the New Covenant.
>>1078863
>Furthermore, we do have a direct command from Jesus to go forth and make disciples of all nations.
That doesn't mean procreate though.
>Again, if there are no Christians, how can we make disciples
It means to convert living people
> It might not be an explicit command but it can inferred.
emphasis on CAN
Still, the afterlife in Christian theology is all about escaping this world, our existence is literally painted as damned. Why bring children into it?
>>1079162
>That doesn't mean procreate though.
>It means to convert living people
But how can Christian do this throughout time and space if they don't procreate? Jesus's command cannot be kept if there are no Christians alive to keep spreading his message. No one in the NT was preaching antinatalism either. The closest thing you might get is Paul, but even he argued that it is better for one to marry than to burn in desire, and given that historically certain Christians were against contraceptives until the 20th century, pregnancy is a natural result.
>Still, the afterlife in Christian theology is all about escaping this world, our existence is literally painted as damned. Why bring children into it?
This is pure Gnosticism. The world might not be perfect, but it is because we have made it as such. Remember that when God made the world, he saw that it was good. Again, we bring children into it because they are inherently a gift from God and all life given by God is inherently worth living/preserving.
1 Corinthians 7
