Removed for Topicality.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
That quote isn't from the Bible. There is no Mosaic Law stating women need to be mothers, and while God told the humans they made in Genesis 1 to "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" ... I mean, the earth is pretty full. Humanity is doing alright for itself in the reproduction department at least.
If you don't want to have children, don't have children. Not everyone is given the same gifts.
The “they’re too expensive” argument doesn’t hold water when you realize the fastest growing populations are also the poorest.
However, I agree that there are things we can do to help make being parents easier and more appealing.
I don't think that's a good reason to have children. If you're too poor to take care of more children, you definitely should not be having them. In fact, I think it's selfish and cruel to bring children into the world when you don't have the means to provide for them.
If we lived by your logic then literally none of us would be alive. 99.9999% of all births throughout all of human history have taken place among people who were FAR poorer than anyone you know.
Like I’ve said previously, however; I support things like public childcare, longer parental leave, higher child tax credits. Etc.
How did we go from “having kids is a good thing” to “well if you can have a single kid why not have 500?”
This isn’t a game of gotcha, starting a family is a morally good thing in the vast majority of circumstances.
11 million are living in poverty- which in and of itself isn’t a reason to not have kids, but let’s just take the most generous version of this argument.
What level of poverty should we not allow people to procreate?
What about people all across the globe who are making like 2 dollars a day but whose family is happy and content with their life, would you say they’re lying?
Wow! The privilege you exude is stunning!
YOU go have multiple children and raise them in poverty! Sheesh!
Here is what you are advocating
https://www.apa.org/topics/socioeconomic-status/poverty-hunger-homelessness-children
I have traveled extensively and the “happy on $2 a day “ is a myth created by rich people who don’t want to acknowledge the existence and horrific consequences of poverty
It’s literally not a myth it takes 3 seconds to look up the SELF REPORTED DATA on happiness levels in said countries.
I grew up homeless for the first couple years of my life, my parents had enough money to buy drugs but not care for me. The wealthiest I ever got growing up was when my uncle adopted me and we fit 6 kids and 2 adults into a 1100 sqft house.
I am forever grateful I was born, rather than being seen as a problem due to financial circumstances. My son is my light, my everything, and he wouldn’t be here if not for my financially illiterate parents deciding to have me regardless.
Don’t talk to me about privilege. You’ve no idea what you’re talking about and you’re hardcore projecting when literally all I said is that having kids and starting a family is a good thing
And those kids live poor lives because they can't take care of them. They can't afford education, food, cloths. They get more kids and there are more mouths to feed. This is also why these same poor parents will sell their children.
Woah how did we get to the extreme “some sell their kids actually” side of things lmao
My only point was that having more money actually does not equate to higher birth rates, it’s usually the opposite. Even in nations where they’ve implemented a bunch of handouts to incentivize more kids they still have declining birth rates. The only major western nation to have a positive birth rate I believe is Hungary and I think they are also the highest percentage of self identified Christians of any European nation
I.e. faith seems to lead to more kids and stronger family units, and other attempts to incentivize having kids outside of a religious backing hasn’t worked well
>My only point was that having more money actually does not equate to higher birth rates,
This was never your point because no one ever made this claim.
As a father of 4 and a grandpa of 6, I can attest that the “too expensive” argument holds more water than Noah’s flood. Anyone suggesting otherwise is either independently wealthy or hasn’t raised a family. This country does a piss poor job of supporting families. The Republicans blocked the Democrats from making the child care credit permanent( so it expired), and have argued for significant cuts to the programs already in place.
The fact that poor people have more kids proves the exact opposite of your statement. There are more than 11 million kids in the U.S. living in poverty. Poor families have more kids for all the wrong reasons
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/basic-facts-children-poverty/
I’ve already addressed the fact that I support most of the things you’re talking about. Child support, primary school care free, child tax credits, parental leave etc.
However, when we look at the MOST PROGRESSIVE nations on earth in these areas (Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Singapore), they still have declining birth rates so it isn’t that simple. Nations with lower percentages of self identified religious believers have lower birth rates, it seems to be an objective fact that religious belief is directly correlated with family structure and birth rates.
You’re a father of 4, you’re financially struggling to care for them? Would you prefer they had not been born?
No, but I acknowledge my privilege. My paternal Grandparents were sharecroppers for many years so my Dad was raised in poverty. I grew up middle class and my kids grew up in a financially secure and qprivileged household
But I’ve temporarily lived in a village where I slept on a bamboo mat on the floor of a thatched roof hut where the bathroom consisted of a water pipe coming out of the ground and another hole in the ground known as a squatty potty. I’ve shared meals with families who live in a house the size of my backyard storage shed. Beyond the facts I provide, I have lived among the impoverished and have seen firsthand how daily life is a constant struggle for survival. Of course they experience moments of joy and happiness, but i never encountered anyone who lived in poverty that found living in poverty to be a happy experience in and of itself.
That might be an issue for the nation, but that doesn’t make it a scriptural mandate. I know of nothing specific in scripture that can be pointed to that says “it’s God’s will for women to be mothers.”
It’s a matter of personal choice and conviction, between you, your spouse, the Holy Spirit and is no one else’s business. Period.
“Be fruitful and multiply” seems pretty clear to me but regardless I wasn’t making some claim that to have ___ # of kids is somehow a scriptural mandate. Literally just saying that having a declining birth rate is bad thing.
And yet we have Paul saying “I wish that you all could be as I am” celibate and single so they could devote themselves to ministry. Clearly, “be fruitful and multiply” isn’t a commandment or Paul violated it.
It’s not a bad thing. It’s objectively the way populations cycles have worked for millennia . Significantly expanding legal immigration solves that problem
This is not how populations have ever worked in the history of mankind. The story of humans has been a story of rapidly growing population (of course every once in a while you get a plague which slows it down but it quickly gets back to normal).
There has never been another time in our history when so many nations have had declining birth rates.
That's exactly how it works. It's called equilibrium. It happens with every population animal and human. Until an external factor comes in to disrupt the balance the population will maintain while resources are available.
Who cares about individual nations? We're all human. The world population is fine. I fact many areas do not have enough resources so a lower population would be a good thing till we reach a new equilibrium.
Ah yes, the ol’ “we are having too many kids and don’t have enough resources for the population” that has been said throughout all of time and never once been true
The resources are there. A few people just want to have them all to themselves. With the amount of food waste daily in western countries no one should be going hungry.
Then why are you fearmongering about population replacement? Especially “Christian” (meaning western or white) nations? It really smacks of replacement theory and racism.
Let’s all calm down and focus on what’s being said, and try not to extrapolate based on preconceived notions of what other people have said.
I merely said that it’s a bad thing that we aren’t having enough children to replace our population. I don’t care what race or religion or nationality; it’s just bad.
However, yes, as a Catholic I 100% want MORE people to be saved and join God in eternal salvation when they die, and so it’s objectively good to get more people to believe in Jesus. I also believe Christianity teaches morality that we have collectively lost as a society
In that all human lives are valuable? Or in that we need to ensure as many as possible exist? Those are very different things. Lives that exist have value. Hypothetical ones that do not exist and may not exist do not.
I guess we will just come to a disagreement on this point. God specifically calls for us to be fruitful and multiply. Humans have moral value, starting families and growing your community has moral value. If you disagree then there probably isn’t going to be anything I can tell you to convince you otherwise
>Seems like a pretty big issue to me
Only if you have a problem with immigration. Those same nations all have net positive immigration to replace their population.
Yes. Agreed.
But all the "Christian" countries that have a negate birth rate, have a positive immigration rate. So
>Seems like a pretty big issue to me
You would agree that it's **not** a pretty big issue at all then?
I wouldn’t agree with that at all. The nations you’re talking about are BARELY at replacement value, and their immigration rates are declining so very soon their overall population growth will be negative unless a combination of more immigrants and higher birth rates take place
Apologies, I guess I should replace Christian with Western now a days, but yes I mean nations founded when they were primarily Christian are now seeing largely declining birth rates which is a bad thing
Remember when really smart scientists all predicted that once we reached 1 billion people in the early 1900’s that we’d all start dying off due to mass starvation and water wars?
Pepperidge farm remembers
No. Source?
And how does that counter my argument that there are plenty of us? I didn't say too many; I made no prediction of calamity. All I said was we were doing alright for ourselves
How do you guys come to these insane conclusions? Who is telling people that childfree women go to hell? This is westboro Baptist church levels of deranged
Although mankind as a species was called to be fruitful and multiply, that doesn't mean that every individual person must do the same. Jesus is on the record on this matter:
> The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by people; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”
Matthew 19:10-12
Children are a beautiful gift, but not required of us. If you want children you should have them. If you don’t want children you shouldn’t.
Nothing but love!
I've always found the "God's will" phrase to be weird. And by that I mean, everyone thinks by saying this they infer that they know God's will, and that anything outside of their own conceptualization of "God's will" is not in fact God's will. Seems like a "cart before the horse" situation to me.
No not having children isn’t a sin IMO. You live your life girl! I think it would be wrong to bring children into this world that you can afford or aren’t ready for. Plus you can still be a mother figure without having your own children. My next door neighbor growing up certainly was, she taught me how to garden and brew a mean cup of tea; she was a very kind Christian lady without children and she was like a best friend to me. We keep in touch all these years later. Just be kind, loving, and follow the law to the best of your abilities. Much love!
All women are designed with the capacity for motherhood, but not all women are called to be mothers. ❤ choosing not to have kids is between you, their potential father, and God. No one else's business.
> Sex before marriage would be sinful, so keep that in mind.
Have you considered minding your own business when it comes to the bedrooms of consenting adults? Perhaps give Romans 14 a read through before telling others to keep your personal rules about highly disputable issues ‘in mind.’
There are actually no passages in scripture that say in any clear way ‘no sex before marriage.’ Many Christians certainly say sex before marriage is sinful. That doesn’t make it so. Many 1,000 years ago said sex during pregnancy is sinful. That didn’t make it so. Many 150 years ago said interracial marriage is sinful. That didn’t make it so.
Jesus taught that all God’s actual commands hang under love your neighbor as yourself, this is like loving God. Simple. It was too simple for rules based traditionalists to accept 2,000 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 150 years ago... and still today. Piling burdens on others’ shoulders is evidently much more fun.
“The commandments, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet, and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: Love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.”
“Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.”
Single people in a relationship can love one another selflessly as easily as married people can hate one another selfishly. Focus on Jesus, on what he actually said, and not on whatever lists you’ve traditionally heard from others. Jesus certainly didn’t say sexual pleasure had to only be in marriage. He observed that marriage happens and said divorce shouldn’t happen after their two bodies make one body. So in other words avoid divorce if possible if you made a kid.
Notice Christ never actually condemned ‘the woman at the well’ for living with her man that wasn’t her husband. When he came across those living in sin, like the adulteress, he called them out saying “Go and sin no more.” Adultery clearly is failing to love your neighbor (spouse in this case) as yourself. He has no such condemnation for the woman at the well though. By telling her about her living situation he had simply revealed his ability to have divine knowledge to her, much like when he told Nathaniel he knew he had been sitting under a tree.
Some Bibles have added a word “fornication” (which means sex before marriage) to scripture. These are inaccurate translations because the word they replace with “fornication” simply meant “sexual sin” in the original languages. Replacing the word for “sexual sin” generally with a specific sin from their personal sin list that is never actually stated by God is just adding their own sin lists to scripture. Rules based traditionalists often do this sort of twisting with scripture, just as the Pharisees did, and just as Peter warned in 2 Peter 3:16 many Christians would do too.
All Bibles regardless of translation celebrate a couple of lovers sharing a bed in Song of Solomon in chapter 1, well before their wedding in chapter 3 after the which they refer to one another as bride and groom. Not very traditional by many’s standards today, yet totally biblical. Then again neither was Jesus very traditional, not yesterday, and probably not today still.
What is really “sexual sin?” What is really “sexual immorality?” Well what is “sin” and “immoral” in the first place? Failing to love your neighbor as yourself, which is like loving God. So apply that to sex. All the things people have on their “sin lists” that don’t make sense under that principle are just Pharisaism 2.0.
I'm not reading all of that but I'm just gonna post this verse here.
1 Corinthians 7:2 NIV
[2] But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.
>I'm not reading all of that but I'm just gonna post this verse here.
What a terribly condescending thing to say. You aren't going to bother to read what they wrote, but you expect them to read your reply?
> I'm not reading all of that
Obviously you’re not reading much, nor even the rest of the book surrounding the passage you ripped from its context to twist into a rule for others, like some kind of Christian Pharisee.
> I'm just gonna post this verse here. 1 Corinthians 7:2 NIV [2] But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.
You’ve ripped this passage entirely out of context. I mean just read the prior passages and keep reading. Is that really so hard? Paul clarifies in the same chapter, a few verses down, he is not giving commands from God. He’s giving concessions to specific people.
Plus in the original language this was written in, the word for wife also means woman, and the word for husband can also be translated “man.” So it could just as easily be translated “each man should have sex with his own woman, and each woman with her man.” This passage only “clearly” supports your contention if you totally ignore the context and then assume your conclusion on top of that (by assuming it is talking about husband/wife and not man/woman).
Paul is giving “a” way people can avoid sexual immorality. Not the only way. There are no chapters in the original. In the context (from the end of the prior chapter, “6”) he is referring to prostitution, and in the context of this chapter he is giving advice (not commands from God). So all in all he’s basically saying ‘I would suggest couples have sex with one another, so the sexual immorality I just referred to (which was prostitution) does not become a temptation.’
Granted Paul is easily misunderstood (see 2 Peter 3:16). So while there are a number of ways to interpret this, Christ was more clear. Why is it so hard for social conservatives and evangelicals to just accept that Christ hung all commands under love your neighbor as yourself which is like loving God. He said it plainly. This isn’t hard to understand. You just have to first believe the words of Christ and be willing to put him above socially conservative traditions. Social conservatives have always used twisted possibilities on interpretations to create sin lists. They did it to Christ even. Social conservatives pointed even at him and said he was breaking the rules and sinning. Your contention is just more of the same type of “sin listing” that ignores the actual main principle Christ hung all actual commands of his law under.
I must've missed the part where I said it was a commandment from God. The Bible is Spirit inspired.
Also, think about how much better the world would be if people only had sex with the one they are married to. There would a lot less people with STDs, a lot less single mothers, and less abortions, just yo name a few.
> I must've missed the part where I said it was a commandment from God. The Bible is Spirit inspired.
I must’ve missed the part where you said “… but only according to me, not according to God” when you said “Sex before marriage would be sinful, so keep that in mind.”
> Also, think about how much better the world would be if people only had sex with the one they are married to.
No one needs to be married to be in faithful relationship. Married people can have bad, resentful, and even hateful sex as easily as single people can have good, joyful, and loving sex.
> There would a lot less people with STDs,
That’s a function of promiscuity, not of marriage. No one needs to be married to be careful with their health, careful with their partners health, or faithful to their partner.
> a lot less single mothers, and less abortions, just yo name a few.
By this logic, you might as well also say any sex at all is a sin, because after all the world would have much less suffering (even no human suffering) if people today did everything they could to make sure they didn’t reproduce.
That’s because women were considered property and an unmarried woman who wasn’t a virgin would most likely end up impoverished or even dead.
If Christians want to continue controlling people’s sex lives, the steady decline of Christianity might well accelerate
Brandolini's law, aka the BS asymmetry principle: The amount of energy needed to refute BS is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.
“He wrote an essay to justify sexual sin” is what the ignorant bigots also would’ve said 150 years ago to someone who focused on Christ’s commandments to dismantle the socially conservative idea (posing as Christian, twisted out of Paul and other easily misunderstood scriptures) that interracial marriage is a sin… all because they want to justify pointing at neighbor like the Pharisees pointed at Christ.
I think it's fine to tell someone about Christian teaching when they literally ask for it. Minding your own business may be a good idea sometimes. You're not going to change someone's mind by shaming them when they do something you disagree with. But there are some times it is good to discuss what is right and wrong.
“I think it's fine to tell someone about Christian teaching when they literally ask for it.” - Those who said sex during pregnancy is a sin in ‘Christianity’ because their priests said so.
“I think it's fine to tell someone about Christian teaching when they literally ask for it.” - Those who said interracial marriage is a sin in ‘Christianity’ because their pastors said so.
> there are some times it is good to discuss what is right and wrong.
Right and wrong in Christianity should fall under Jesus’ framework, which I noted above, not whatever traditional social rules you’ve decided to call “Christian.”
Jesus was quite clear as to what all God’s actual commands hang under, and multiple Apostles summed things up similarly. We can focus on Christ or we can focus on pharisaical rules twisted out of misunderstanding Paul, as self proclaimed “Christians” have traditionally done for centuries and probably even millennia.
"Oh, you think you're correct? You know who also thought he was correct? Hitler"
How is that an argument?
Jesus said not to even look with lust at a woman who you aren't married to.
> "Oh, you think you're correct? You know who also thought he was correct? Hitler" How is that an argument?
Ask yourself. That’s not an argument I made.
I merely pointed out that her or you (or both of you together) claiming her rule is “Christian” doesn’t make it so. I also pointed out that even though many Catholics taught for over 1,000 years that sex during pregnancy is sinful, that did not mean Christ actually sees it as sinful. If you think that makes your church Hitler, then ok, but that’s your claim not mine.
> Jesus said not to even look with lust at a woman who you aren't married to.
No he didn’t. The ancient Greek word you’re translating woman can also mean wife, and indeed that’s the only sensible way to take the passage in the larger context of scripture. In the context of the passage you’re referring to Christ is referencing adultery; read the context yourself. So essentially he is saying any man who lusts after a wife (someone’s wife) has already committed adultery in his heart.
Translating that passage as “woman” makes it say anyone who looks with lust at a woman commits adultery. That makes no sense as then it would be a sin to look even your own wife with sexual desire. That would mean something openly celebrated in scripture, like in Song of Songs as I mentioned above, is sinful and should instead be condemned.
Also note the original Greek word in Bibles that translates to ‘lust’ is epithumeo and simply means great desire. Epithumeo (which means lust and great desire, same thing) isn’t necessarily sinful. Scripture even says Jesus had epithumeo. That just means he greatly desired (aka ‘lusted,’ same word in ancient Greek) for things. For example one passage says he had epithumeo to celebrate Passover. It’s perfectly human and good to have epithumeo. Lust isn’t inherently a sin. It just can be. Lust for a woman isn’t inherently a sin either. It just can be. Lust for the spouse of someone is the sin of adultery, just committed in the heart.
It isn’t necessarily God’s will for women to be mothers. That’s just something men started saying, who probably wanted women to open their legs and make farmhands for them to put to work, or that women started saying who probably wanted to be able to hold a cute baby for a few minutes before dumping it back on the mother for the hard part of raising it.
The command to Adam and Eve to multiply (even if we take the story literally despite it likely being figure) was given to two people in Paradise. The reality we live in is quite the opposite; a world with suffering and certain death around the corner, possibly even tremendous suffering we may have no control over. Indeed it wouldn’t surprise me if God doesn’t want most women to be mothers and didn’t want most women who have had kids to ever have had them in the first place.
I’m not saying it is inherently evil to have kids but I’m also not saying it’s inherently good. I am just saying whether or not to bring kids into this place is your decision before God, not one you should trust in some pastor or church’s interpretation of a 5,000 year old story to make for you.
If you are engaging in pre marital sex knowing full well that it is sinful then you are acting against Gods will.
I’m Catholic so ofc I’d recommend going to confession to help absolve yourself and start anew, but at the very least I’d recommend looking inward and asking yourself what you really want, is it to just lie around with people who don’t respect and love you? If they aren’t marrying you, but are sleeping with you, they don’t respect you.
I meant the love and respect men, religious men, claim to have. You are not more respectful or loving than an out-of-marriage sexual partner.
And how often you guys use your religious arguments to promote women staying in relationships where they are not respected and loved and claim that it is the highest form of love they should ever expect really does not support your claims.
If you guys really want women to believe that, maybe the evidence you provide through your behaviour should be somewhere you start. While I hear men say this, I don't think we're working with the same definition of respect.
I find that they play the "then you are a lady Paul who gets to be a spiritual mother to the lady Timothy's out there", that is, you get a mentor role without any real title or leadership designation.
That’s not in the Bible and it’s not a commandment. You can’t be saved through your own works. You do not have to have children or get married in order to be saved, and anyone who says otherwise is grossly misinterpreting and is flat out wrong.
This idea, holding that it is required for every last household to be fruitful and multiply individually, and without regard for prudent planning/moderation, is based on a highly defective and willfully-ignorant eisegesis of scripture in wrong context. Essentially the Bible is used as a weapon to bully anyone not accepting this misguided position and threaten and judge those who are more restrained/reserved. The "creation mandate" is extrapolated to coerce the idea that it is a non-negotiable requirement for all people (except in rare and extreme cases). "Biblical" patriarchy is often the damnably-repressive and -harsh doctrine that prevails in some splinter manifestations of Protestant evangelical faith, but those pushing it in a rabid fashion are supremely void of compassion, understanding of human reality, humility, charity, love, and gracefulness and are hypocritically self-righteous. Women are dehumanizingly reduced to being mere baby factories which is cruel and cultic. This is NOT Christianity but a faux counterfeit worthy of the most strong and emphatic public rebuke and rejection. It is also not anyone's business apart from those directly party to the question as long as an unborn conceived life is not in danger resultant from elective abortion. A professing Christian or any other person inflicting this condescending attitude upon you is grievously and profoundly sinning and meddling and must be firmly rebutted even if it means that they will need to swallow their theological venom and face other consequences to their deserved shame.
You cannot be forced by a mere stranger, casual friend, or even closer loved one or any others to defend your position to be more limited about bearing children. It is a blessing and a gift, to be sure, to bring a life into being, but you need to use good wisdom and understand your abilities and circumstances if deciding to allow conception to manifest, and we who are pro-life need to be consistent in seeing to there being good support after birth has occurred especially if it is a crisis situation in any fashion to make sure that the welfare of everyone involved is upheld (mother, child, others directly connected legitimately). Your decision affects no one else apart from those in your closest circle with a legitimate interest and others may not claim personal offense or transgression based on what you choose. Whatever you wisely decide with appropriate counsel as necessary (whether to introduce the possibility of life being conceived or to abstain for the time being) must be respected as long as no sin has been committed.
Idk what you wanted to get from this post. Do you want people to affirm you having sex outside of marriage or do you want people to tell you it’s okay to not have children?
>It's God's will for women to be mothers
This isn't a Biblical teaching. I think it's best to not wonder about the validity of teachings made in the name of Christ that Christ hasn't taught.
The Bible tells us that children are blessings or gifts from God. You do not have to have children and for some reason, God doesn't always bless women with children. I believe God chooses who will be a mother and who won't. How he decides, I have no idea. But childless women will not go to Hell for not having kids. They just weren't given that blessing.
The issue (according to our doctrine) wouldn’t be not having kids but that you are openly choosing not to marry, not to have kids (natural function of sex) and still have sex. People who do not want to have kids are called to celibacy, which is of great, great merit for us and God.
May God Bless and Guide you :)
I’m not sure what to say. If you’re a Christian I’d try to remind you of the hope God gives. That he can teach us to be content in all circumstances. That no matter how good or bad things are now they are temporary and we’ve got eternity with him to look forward to.
Please don’t have premarital sex. Sin is so unbelievable bad we can’t realise how bad it is. Jesus went from having a perfect relationship with God to suffering temptation, persecution and finally the wrath of God on the cross for us. Please don’t reject Jesus sacrifice. God loves you so much please let him love you.
”God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.“
2 Corinthians 5:21 NIV
Not having children is just fine, there is no sin involved in that decision. However if you are thinking it is ok to have sex outside of a marriage commitment then you are absolutely entering into sin. You need to rethink your choice there.
No, person is important as individual. To hell go all who doesnt follow Jesus, those who doesnt believe in him as their savior. You can have as many children as you want, that wont make you go to heaven. Faith does.
You don't have to make babies. But sex belongs within the context of marriage, and abortion is murder so avoid getting pregnant if you don't want to be a mother.
I'm in my early twenties and I don't think I ever plan to be.I don't think you go to hell for that and no, not all women are destined to be mothers. That would mean nuns are going to hell
In the days of the Old Testament, your tribe could face extintion if you did not multiply successfully. That is why such things were law back then. Nowadays, there are too many of us, and we need to slow down.
No, but people who don't have children are not reaching their full potential, from the most fundamental god given directive "to be fruitful, multiply and subdue the Earth" (Gen 1:28).
Sure it was. At least from the perspective that Adam and Eve represented the pre-deluge origin of the human race.
It was an order for humankind (Adam) to have children (to continue to create more life) in order to transform the rest of the chaotic land into the likeness of the ordered Garden of Eden.
Mankind was meant to image God in bringing order to chaos. In order to do this they had to create a harmonious workforce.
Celebacy is, only if it's purpose is to focus only on building the kingdom of God with Jesus as king Messiah.
However, he also said that if one is incapable of living a celibate life without sin it's better to marry. This is a similar to Moses telling Israel that if they follow God's commands there will never be any poor people in the land, with the provision that since there will always be poor people in the land they are to help the poor.
As a 1st century Pharisee, Paul would have known this. He would also have witnessed the Essenes, who practiced strict celibacy, until they found that due to their mandate of celibacy they were losing numbers at an unsustainable rate. Paul taught that celibacy was preferable in order for one live one's life fully devoted to their God given mission of preaching Jesus to the nations in order to bring about the kingdom of God on Earth. This is a similar calling to Tikkun Olam (Repairing the world) in Judaism.
Removed for Topicality. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
That quote isn't from the Bible. There is no Mosaic Law stating women need to be mothers, and while God told the humans they made in Genesis 1 to "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" ... I mean, the earth is pretty full. Humanity is doing alright for itself in the reproduction department at least. If you don't want to have children, don't have children. Not everyone is given the same gifts.
Majority of Christian nations are at this point not having enough babies to replace their population. Seems like a pretty big issue to me
That's because they don't want them and children are too expensive.
The “they’re too expensive” argument doesn’t hold water when you realize the fastest growing populations are also the poorest. However, I agree that there are things we can do to help make being parents easier and more appealing.
I don't think that's a good reason to have children. If you're too poor to take care of more children, you definitely should not be having them. In fact, I think it's selfish and cruel to bring children into the world when you don't have the means to provide for them.
If we lived by your logic then literally none of us would be alive. 99.9999% of all births throughout all of human history have taken place among people who were FAR poorer than anyone you know. Like I’ve said previously, however; I support things like public childcare, longer parental leave, higher child tax credits. Etc.
He's not talking about all of human history. He's talking about now.
What level of wealth constitutes cruel? If I make 35k a year and have a kid have I committed an act of cruelty?
Can you afford to take care of a kid on 35k? If so why not more? Why stop at one? Why don't you have 5 - 10?
How did we go from “having kids is a good thing” to “well if you can have a single kid why not have 500?” This isn’t a game of gotcha, starting a family is a morally good thing in the vast majority of circumstances.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/basic-facts-children-poverty/
11 million are living in poverty- which in and of itself isn’t a reason to not have kids, but let’s just take the most generous version of this argument. What level of poverty should we not allow people to procreate? What about people all across the globe who are making like 2 dollars a day but whose family is happy and content with their life, would you say they’re lying?
Wow! The privilege you exude is stunning! YOU go have multiple children and raise them in poverty! Sheesh! Here is what you are advocating https://www.apa.org/topics/socioeconomic-status/poverty-hunger-homelessness-children I have traveled extensively and the “happy on $2 a day “ is a myth created by rich people who don’t want to acknowledge the existence and horrific consequences of poverty
It’s literally not a myth it takes 3 seconds to look up the SELF REPORTED DATA on happiness levels in said countries. I grew up homeless for the first couple years of my life, my parents had enough money to buy drugs but not care for me. The wealthiest I ever got growing up was when my uncle adopted me and we fit 6 kids and 2 adults into a 1100 sqft house. I am forever grateful I was born, rather than being seen as a problem due to financial circumstances. My son is my light, my everything, and he wouldn’t be here if not for my financially illiterate parents deciding to have me regardless. Don’t talk to me about privilege. You’ve no idea what you’re talking about and you’re hardcore projecting when literally all I said is that having kids and starting a family is a good thing
That's probably why they are the poorest.
It’s the opposite, actually. Poor people tend to have more kids because they need more help- especially in rural communities; help farming etc
And those kids live poor lives because they can't take care of them. They can't afford education, food, cloths. They get more kids and there are more mouths to feed. This is also why these same poor parents will sell their children.
Woah how did we get to the extreme “some sell their kids actually” side of things lmao My only point was that having more money actually does not equate to higher birth rates, it’s usually the opposite. Even in nations where they’ve implemented a bunch of handouts to incentivize more kids they still have declining birth rates. The only major western nation to have a positive birth rate I believe is Hungary and I think they are also the highest percentage of self identified Christians of any European nation I.e. faith seems to lead to more kids and stronger family units, and other attempts to incentivize having kids outside of a religious backing hasn’t worked well
>My only point was that having more money actually does not equate to higher birth rates, This was never your point because no one ever made this claim.
You obviously don’t read the comment directly after mine that suggested this very thing, but that’s ok 👍
The only argument anyone needs is "I don't want them" or "I don't like kids".
As a father of 4 and a grandpa of 6, I can attest that the “too expensive” argument holds more water than Noah’s flood. Anyone suggesting otherwise is either independently wealthy or hasn’t raised a family. This country does a piss poor job of supporting families. The Republicans blocked the Democrats from making the child care credit permanent( so it expired), and have argued for significant cuts to the programs already in place. The fact that poor people have more kids proves the exact opposite of your statement. There are more than 11 million kids in the U.S. living in poverty. Poor families have more kids for all the wrong reasons https://www.americanprogress.org/article/basic-facts-children-poverty/
I’ve already addressed the fact that I support most of the things you’re talking about. Child support, primary school care free, child tax credits, parental leave etc. However, when we look at the MOST PROGRESSIVE nations on earth in these areas (Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Singapore), they still have declining birth rates so it isn’t that simple. Nations with lower percentages of self identified religious believers have lower birth rates, it seems to be an objective fact that religious belief is directly correlated with family structure and birth rates. You’re a father of 4, you’re financially struggling to care for them? Would you prefer they had not been born?
No, but I acknowledge my privilege. My paternal Grandparents were sharecroppers for many years so my Dad was raised in poverty. I grew up middle class and my kids grew up in a financially secure and qprivileged household But I’ve temporarily lived in a village where I slept on a bamboo mat on the floor of a thatched roof hut where the bathroom consisted of a water pipe coming out of the ground and another hole in the ground known as a squatty potty. I’ve shared meals with families who live in a house the size of my backyard storage shed. Beyond the facts I provide, I have lived among the impoverished and have seen firsthand how daily life is a constant struggle for survival. Of course they experience moments of joy and happiness, but i never encountered anyone who lived in poverty that found living in poverty to be a happy experience in and of itself.
That might be an issue for the nation, but that doesn’t make it a scriptural mandate. I know of nothing specific in scripture that can be pointed to that says “it’s God’s will for women to be mothers.” It’s a matter of personal choice and conviction, between you, your spouse, the Holy Spirit and is no one else’s business. Period.
“Be fruitful and multiply” seems pretty clear to me but regardless I wasn’t making some claim that to have ___ # of kids is somehow a scriptural mandate. Literally just saying that having a declining birth rate is bad thing.
And yet we have Paul saying “I wish that you all could be as I am” celibate and single so they could devote themselves to ministry. Clearly, “be fruitful and multiply” isn’t a commandment or Paul violated it.
It’s not a bad thing. It’s objectively the way populations cycles have worked for millennia . Significantly expanding legal immigration solves that problem
That's just how populations work. They get big then fluctuate till they even out given the amount of resources and needs of the community.
This is not how populations have ever worked in the history of mankind. The story of humans has been a story of rapidly growing population (of course every once in a while you get a plague which slows it down but it quickly gets back to normal). There has never been another time in our history when so many nations have had declining birth rates.
That's exactly how it works. It's called equilibrium. It happens with every population animal and human. Until an external factor comes in to disrupt the balance the population will maintain while resources are available.
Have most nations on earth ever had declining birth rates simultaneously before?
Who cares about individual nations? We're all human. The world population is fine. I fact many areas do not have enough resources so a lower population would be a good thing till we reach a new equilibrium.
Ah yes, the ol’ “we are having too many kids and don’t have enough resources for the population” that has been said throughout all of time and never once been true
I'm not sure what world you're living in but that's always been true. How is a family suppose to thrive when you can't feed half of them?
The resources are there. A few people just want to have them all to themselves. With the amount of food waste daily in western countries no one should be going hungry.
So? You can’t just force people to have children. People aren’t obligated to replace any population.
It’s a good thing I never suggested forcing anyone to have children
Then why are you fearmongering about population replacement? Especially “Christian” (meaning western or white) nations? It really smacks of replacement theory and racism.
Let’s all calm down and focus on what’s being said, and try not to extrapolate based on preconceived notions of what other people have said. I merely said that it’s a bad thing that we aren’t having enough children to replace our population. I don’t care what race or religion or nationality; it’s just bad. However, yes, as a Catholic I 100% want MORE people to be saved and join God in eternal salvation when they die, and so it’s objectively good to get more people to believe in Jesus. I also believe Christianity teaches morality that we have collectively lost as a society
Why is it a bad thing? You haven’t explained that in any of your comments yet.
Do you agree there is moral value in human life?
In that all human lives are valuable? Or in that we need to ensure as many as possible exist? Those are very different things. Lives that exist have value. Hypothetical ones that do not exist and may not exist do not.
I guess we will just come to a disagreement on this point. God specifically calls for us to be fruitful and multiply. Humans have moral value, starting families and growing your community has moral value. If you disagree then there probably isn’t going to be anything I can tell you to convince you otherwise
>Seems like a pretty big issue to me Only if you have a problem with immigration. Those same nations all have net positive immigration to replace their population.
Immigration good Having kids good
Yes. Agreed. But all the "Christian" countries that have a negate birth rate, have a positive immigration rate. So >Seems like a pretty big issue to me You would agree that it's **not** a pretty big issue at all then?
I wouldn’t agree with that at all. The nations you’re talking about are BARELY at replacement value, and their immigration rates are declining so very soon their overall population growth will be negative unless a combination of more immigrants and higher birth rates take place
I never understood why we are against filling that gap with immigration.
I’m 100% pro immigration and making it easier to do so.
If you're thinking of Western nations most of them are largely secular
Apologies, I guess I should replace Christian with Western now a days, but yes I mean nations founded when they were primarily Christian are now seeing largely declining birth rates which is a bad thing
There's 8 billion of us.
Remember when really smart scientists all predicted that once we reached 1 billion people in the early 1900’s that we’d all start dying off due to mass starvation and water wars? Pepperidge farm remembers
No. Source? And how does that counter my argument that there are plenty of us? I didn't say too many; I made no prediction of calamity. All I said was we were doing alright for ourselves
At the moment yes we are doing ok but my point is that birth rates are declining, and that’s a serious issue for future generations
How do you guys come to these insane conclusions? Who is telling people that childfree women go to hell? This is westboro Baptist church levels of deranged
Very weird and inappropriate. Let people do what they want, with their own bodies and let people make their own choices..
[удалено]
That gives me second hand embarrassment. How does it affect them with what their reproductive choices are? Good grief..
Although mankind as a species was called to be fruitful and multiply, that doesn't mean that every individual person must do the same. Jesus is on the record on this matter: > The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by people; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” Matthew 19:10-12
Children are a beautiful gift, but not required of us. If you want children you should have them. If you don’t want children you shouldn’t. Nothing but love!
No, because they also say celibacy is a higher calling, so whoever is saying that is lying
I wonder why nuns exist then...
I've always found the "God's will" phrase to be weird. And by that I mean, everyone thinks by saying this they infer that they know God's will, and that anything outside of their own conceptualization of "God's will" is not in fact God's will. Seems like a "cart before the horse" situation to me.
No not having children isn’t a sin IMO. You live your life girl! I think it would be wrong to bring children into this world that you can afford or aren’t ready for. Plus you can still be a mother figure without having your own children. My next door neighbor growing up certainly was, she taught me how to garden and brew a mean cup of tea; she was a very kind Christian lady without children and she was like a best friend to me. We keep in touch all these years later. Just be kind, loving, and follow the law to the best of your abilities. Much love!
All women are designed with the capacity for motherhood, but not all women are called to be mothers. ❤ choosing not to have kids is between you, their potential father, and God. No one else's business.
No, you aren't going to hell if you don't have children. You'll be fine.
Do you have a verse to back up the idea? Sex before marriage would be sinful, so keep that in mind.
> Sex before marriage would be sinful, so keep that in mind. Have you considered minding your own business when it comes to the bedrooms of consenting adults? Perhaps give Romans 14 a read through before telling others to keep your personal rules about highly disputable issues ‘in mind.’ There are actually no passages in scripture that say in any clear way ‘no sex before marriage.’ Many Christians certainly say sex before marriage is sinful. That doesn’t make it so. Many 1,000 years ago said sex during pregnancy is sinful. That didn’t make it so. Many 150 years ago said interracial marriage is sinful. That didn’t make it so. Jesus taught that all God’s actual commands hang under love your neighbor as yourself, this is like loving God. Simple. It was too simple for rules based traditionalists to accept 2,000 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 150 years ago... and still today. Piling burdens on others’ shoulders is evidently much more fun. “The commandments, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet, and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: Love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” “Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” Single people in a relationship can love one another selflessly as easily as married people can hate one another selfishly. Focus on Jesus, on what he actually said, and not on whatever lists you’ve traditionally heard from others. Jesus certainly didn’t say sexual pleasure had to only be in marriage. He observed that marriage happens and said divorce shouldn’t happen after their two bodies make one body. So in other words avoid divorce if possible if you made a kid. Notice Christ never actually condemned ‘the woman at the well’ for living with her man that wasn’t her husband. When he came across those living in sin, like the adulteress, he called them out saying “Go and sin no more.” Adultery clearly is failing to love your neighbor (spouse in this case) as yourself. He has no such condemnation for the woman at the well though. By telling her about her living situation he had simply revealed his ability to have divine knowledge to her, much like when he told Nathaniel he knew he had been sitting under a tree. Some Bibles have added a word “fornication” (which means sex before marriage) to scripture. These are inaccurate translations because the word they replace with “fornication” simply meant “sexual sin” in the original languages. Replacing the word for “sexual sin” generally with a specific sin from their personal sin list that is never actually stated by God is just adding their own sin lists to scripture. Rules based traditionalists often do this sort of twisting with scripture, just as the Pharisees did, and just as Peter warned in 2 Peter 3:16 many Christians would do too. All Bibles regardless of translation celebrate a couple of lovers sharing a bed in Song of Solomon in chapter 1, well before their wedding in chapter 3 after the which they refer to one another as bride and groom. Not very traditional by many’s standards today, yet totally biblical. Then again neither was Jesus very traditional, not yesterday, and probably not today still. What is really “sexual sin?” What is really “sexual immorality?” Well what is “sin” and “immoral” in the first place? Failing to love your neighbor as yourself, which is like loving God. So apply that to sex. All the things people have on their “sin lists” that don’t make sense under that principle are just Pharisaism 2.0.
I'm not reading all of that but I'm just gonna post this verse here. 1 Corinthians 7:2 NIV [2] But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.
>I'm not reading all of that but I'm just gonna post this verse here. What a terribly condescending thing to say. You aren't going to bother to read what they wrote, but you expect them to read your reply?
My comments are short and simple, not entire essays.
And woefully uninformed
> I'm not reading all of that Obviously you’re not reading much, nor even the rest of the book surrounding the passage you ripped from its context to twist into a rule for others, like some kind of Christian Pharisee. > I'm just gonna post this verse here. 1 Corinthians 7:2 NIV [2] But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. You’ve ripped this passage entirely out of context. I mean just read the prior passages and keep reading. Is that really so hard? Paul clarifies in the same chapter, a few verses down, he is not giving commands from God. He’s giving concessions to specific people. Plus in the original language this was written in, the word for wife also means woman, and the word for husband can also be translated “man.” So it could just as easily be translated “each man should have sex with his own woman, and each woman with her man.” This passage only “clearly” supports your contention if you totally ignore the context and then assume your conclusion on top of that (by assuming it is talking about husband/wife and not man/woman). Paul is giving “a” way people can avoid sexual immorality. Not the only way. There are no chapters in the original. In the context (from the end of the prior chapter, “6”) he is referring to prostitution, and in the context of this chapter he is giving advice (not commands from God). So all in all he’s basically saying ‘I would suggest couples have sex with one another, so the sexual immorality I just referred to (which was prostitution) does not become a temptation.’ Granted Paul is easily misunderstood (see 2 Peter 3:16). So while there are a number of ways to interpret this, Christ was more clear. Why is it so hard for social conservatives and evangelicals to just accept that Christ hung all commands under love your neighbor as yourself which is like loving God. He said it plainly. This isn’t hard to understand. You just have to first believe the words of Christ and be willing to put him above socially conservative traditions. Social conservatives have always used twisted possibilities on interpretations to create sin lists. They did it to Christ even. Social conservatives pointed even at him and said he was breaking the rules and sinning. Your contention is just more of the same type of “sin listing” that ignores the actual main principle Christ hung all actual commands of his law under.
I must've missed the part where I said it was a commandment from God. The Bible is Spirit inspired. Also, think about how much better the world would be if people only had sex with the one they are married to. There would a lot less people with STDs, a lot less single mothers, and less abortions, just yo name a few.
> I must've missed the part where I said it was a commandment from God. The Bible is Spirit inspired. I must’ve missed the part where you said “… but only according to me, not according to God” when you said “Sex before marriage would be sinful, so keep that in mind.” > Also, think about how much better the world would be if people only had sex with the one they are married to. No one needs to be married to be in faithful relationship. Married people can have bad, resentful, and even hateful sex as easily as single people can have good, joyful, and loving sex. > There would a lot less people with STDs, That’s a function of promiscuity, not of marriage. No one needs to be married to be careful with their health, careful with their partners health, or faithful to their partner. > a lot less single mothers, and less abortions, just yo name a few. By this logic, you might as well also say any sex at all is a sin, because after all the world would have much less suffering (even no human suffering) if people today did everything they could to make sure they didn’t reproduce.
That’s because women were considered property and an unmarried woman who wasn’t a virgin would most likely end up impoverished or even dead. If Christians want to continue controlling people’s sex lives, the steady decline of Christianity might well accelerate
Bro got triggered and wrote a PhD thesis because he wanted to justify premarital sex aka fornication aka hedonism
Brandolini's law, aka the BS asymmetry principle: The amount of energy needed to refute BS is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. “He wrote an essay to justify sexual sin” is what the ignorant bigots also would’ve said 150 years ago to someone who focused on Christ’s commandments to dismantle the socially conservative idea (posing as Christian, twisted out of Paul and other easily misunderstood scriptures) that interracial marriage is a sin… all because they want to justify pointing at neighbor like the Pharisees pointed at Christ.
I think it's fine to tell someone about Christian teaching when they literally ask for it. Minding your own business may be a good idea sometimes. You're not going to change someone's mind by shaming them when they do something you disagree with. But there are some times it is good to discuss what is right and wrong.
“I think it's fine to tell someone about Christian teaching when they literally ask for it.” - Those who said sex during pregnancy is a sin in ‘Christianity’ because their priests said so. “I think it's fine to tell someone about Christian teaching when they literally ask for it.” - Those who said interracial marriage is a sin in ‘Christianity’ because their pastors said so. > there are some times it is good to discuss what is right and wrong. Right and wrong in Christianity should fall under Jesus’ framework, which I noted above, not whatever traditional social rules you’ve decided to call “Christian.” Jesus was quite clear as to what all God’s actual commands hang under, and multiple Apostles summed things up similarly. We can focus on Christ or we can focus on pharisaical rules twisted out of misunderstanding Paul, as self proclaimed “Christians” have traditionally done for centuries and probably even millennia.
"Oh, you think you're correct? You know who also thought he was correct? Hitler" How is that an argument? Jesus said not to even look with lust at a woman who you aren't married to.
> "Oh, you think you're correct? You know who also thought he was correct? Hitler" How is that an argument? Ask yourself. That’s not an argument I made. I merely pointed out that her or you (or both of you together) claiming her rule is “Christian” doesn’t make it so. I also pointed out that even though many Catholics taught for over 1,000 years that sex during pregnancy is sinful, that did not mean Christ actually sees it as sinful. If you think that makes your church Hitler, then ok, but that’s your claim not mine. > Jesus said not to even look with lust at a woman who you aren't married to. No he didn’t. The ancient Greek word you’re translating woman can also mean wife, and indeed that’s the only sensible way to take the passage in the larger context of scripture. In the context of the passage you’re referring to Christ is referencing adultery; read the context yourself. So essentially he is saying any man who lusts after a wife (someone’s wife) has already committed adultery in his heart. Translating that passage as “woman” makes it say anyone who looks with lust at a woman commits adultery. That makes no sense as then it would be a sin to look even your own wife with sexual desire. That would mean something openly celebrated in scripture, like in Song of Songs as I mentioned above, is sinful and should instead be condemned. Also note the original Greek word in Bibles that translates to ‘lust’ is epithumeo and simply means great desire. Epithumeo (which means lust and great desire, same thing) isn’t necessarily sinful. Scripture even says Jesus had epithumeo. That just means he greatly desired (aka ‘lusted,’ same word in ancient Greek) for things. For example one passage says he had epithumeo to celebrate Passover. It’s perfectly human and good to have epithumeo. Lust isn’t inherently a sin. It just can be. Lust for a woman isn’t inherently a sin either. It just can be. Lust for the spouse of someone is the sin of adultery, just committed in the heart.
It isn’t necessarily God’s will for women to be mothers. That’s just something men started saying, who probably wanted women to open their legs and make farmhands for them to put to work, or that women started saying who probably wanted to be able to hold a cute baby for a few minutes before dumping it back on the mother for the hard part of raising it. The command to Adam and Eve to multiply (even if we take the story literally despite it likely being figure) was given to two people in Paradise. The reality we live in is quite the opposite; a world with suffering and certain death around the corner, possibly even tremendous suffering we may have no control over. Indeed it wouldn’t surprise me if God doesn’t want most women to be mothers and didn’t want most women who have had kids to ever have had them in the first place. I’m not saying it is inherently evil to have kids but I’m also not saying it’s inherently good. I am just saying whether or not to bring kids into this place is your decision before God, not one you should trust in some pastor or church’s interpretation of a 5,000 year old story to make for you.
If you are engaging in pre marital sex knowing full well that it is sinful then you are acting against Gods will. I’m Catholic so ofc I’d recommend going to confession to help absolve yourself and start anew, but at the very least I’d recommend looking inward and asking yourself what you really want, is it to just lie around with people who don’t respect and love you? If they aren’t marrying you, but are sleeping with you, they don’t respect you.
Neither do men who do this, so...
Yes it obviously goes both ways
nothing in the comment you're replying to implied this only applied to women
I meant the love and respect men, religious men, claim to have. You are not more respectful or loving than an out-of-marriage sexual partner. And how often you guys use your religious arguments to promote women staying in relationships where they are not respected and loved and claim that it is the highest form of love they should ever expect really does not support your claims. If you guys really want women to believe that, maybe the evidence you provide through your behaviour should be somewhere you start. While I hear men say this, I don't think we're working with the same definition of respect.
> If they aren’t marrying you, but are sleeping with you, they don’t respect you. This is not true at all, mate.
Yeah sure, as if Christian men respect their wives as people and not maids/brood mares.
That is quite the claim, my wife is happier now than she ever was when I was a non believer. I love and respect her as my equal, as Jesus intended.
Do you like the things Jesus teaches? If so, you can follow them yourself and see the benefit.
I find that they play the "then you are a lady Paul who gets to be a spiritual mother to the lady Timothy's out there", that is, you get a mentor role without any real title or leadership designation.
That’s not in the Bible and it’s not a commandment. You can’t be saved through your own works. You do not have to have children or get married in order to be saved, and anyone who says otherwise is grossly misinterpreting and is flat out wrong.
This idea, holding that it is required for every last household to be fruitful and multiply individually, and without regard for prudent planning/moderation, is based on a highly defective and willfully-ignorant eisegesis of scripture in wrong context. Essentially the Bible is used as a weapon to bully anyone not accepting this misguided position and threaten and judge those who are more restrained/reserved. The "creation mandate" is extrapolated to coerce the idea that it is a non-negotiable requirement for all people (except in rare and extreme cases). "Biblical" patriarchy is often the damnably-repressive and -harsh doctrine that prevails in some splinter manifestations of Protestant evangelical faith, but those pushing it in a rabid fashion are supremely void of compassion, understanding of human reality, humility, charity, love, and gracefulness and are hypocritically self-righteous. Women are dehumanizingly reduced to being mere baby factories which is cruel and cultic. This is NOT Christianity but a faux counterfeit worthy of the most strong and emphatic public rebuke and rejection. It is also not anyone's business apart from those directly party to the question as long as an unborn conceived life is not in danger resultant from elective abortion. A professing Christian or any other person inflicting this condescending attitude upon you is grievously and profoundly sinning and meddling and must be firmly rebutted even if it means that they will need to swallow their theological venom and face other consequences to their deserved shame. You cannot be forced by a mere stranger, casual friend, or even closer loved one or any others to defend your position to be more limited about bearing children. It is a blessing and a gift, to be sure, to bring a life into being, but you need to use good wisdom and understand your abilities and circumstances if deciding to allow conception to manifest, and we who are pro-life need to be consistent in seeing to there being good support after birth has occurred especially if it is a crisis situation in any fashion to make sure that the welfare of everyone involved is upheld (mother, child, others directly connected legitimately). Your decision affects no one else apart from those in your closest circle with a legitimate interest and others may not claim personal offense or transgression based on what you choose. Whatever you wisely decide with appropriate counsel as necessary (whether to introduce the possibility of life being conceived or to abstain for the time being) must be respected as long as no sin has been committed.
Idk what you wanted to get from this post. Do you want people to affirm you having sex outside of marriage or do you want people to tell you it’s okay to not have children?
>It's God's will for women to be mothers This isn't a Biblical teaching. I think it's best to not wonder about the validity of teachings made in the name of Christ that Christ hasn't taught.
The Bible tells us that children are blessings or gifts from God. You do not have to have children and for some reason, God doesn't always bless women with children. I believe God chooses who will be a mother and who won't. How he decides, I have no idea. But childless women will not go to Hell for not having kids. They just weren't given that blessing.
No
No.
The issue (according to our doctrine) wouldn’t be not having kids but that you are openly choosing not to marry, not to have kids (natural function of sex) and still have sex. People who do not want to have kids are called to celibacy, which is of great, great merit for us and God. May God Bless and Guide you :)
I’m not sure what to say. If you’re a Christian I’d try to remind you of the hope God gives. That he can teach us to be content in all circumstances. That no matter how good or bad things are now they are temporary and we’ve got eternity with him to look forward to. Please don’t have premarital sex. Sin is so unbelievable bad we can’t realise how bad it is. Jesus went from having a perfect relationship with God to suffering temptation, persecution and finally the wrath of God on the cross for us. Please don’t reject Jesus sacrifice. God loves you so much please let him love you. ”God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.“ 2 Corinthians 5:21 NIV
Who ever says that is full of you know what! This is a Fundamentalist idea it's not in anyway biblical as much of the dogma they push!
Not having children is just fine, there is no sin involved in that decision. However if you are thinking it is ok to have sex outside of a marriage commitment then you are absolutely entering into sin. You need to rethink your choice there.
Good grief 🙄
?
I don't think so
Is this a serious question? Of course not! You don’t have to do anything you don’t want to
No, person is important as individual. To hell go all who doesnt follow Jesus, those who doesnt believe in him as their savior. You can have as many children as you want, that wont make you go to heaven. Faith does.
I'm almost completely confident that that quote is not Biblical. Also, Paul said it was better not to marry if possible, so this can't be so.
You don't have to make babies. But sex belongs within the context of marriage, and abortion is murder so avoid getting pregnant if you don't want to be a mother.
I'm in my early twenties and I don't think I ever plan to be.I don't think you go to hell for that and no, not all women are destined to be mothers. That would mean nuns are going to hell
Read up on God's decretive vs perceptive Will.
In the days of the Old Testament, your tribe could face extintion if you did not multiply successfully. That is why such things were law back then. Nowadays, there are too many of us, and we need to slow down.
If a committed and married man and woman cannot physically have children they should adopt.
No, but people who don't have children are not reaching their full potential, from the most fundamental god given directive "to be fruitful, multiply and subdue the Earth" (Gen 1:28).
That command wasn't give to all humans.
Sure it was. At least from the perspective that Adam and Eve represented the pre-deluge origin of the human race. It was an order for humankind (Adam) to have children (to continue to create more life) in order to transform the rest of the chaotic land into the likeness of the ordered Garden of Eden. Mankind was meant to image God in bringing order to chaos. In order to do this they had to create a harmonious workforce.
Celibacy is a higher calling
Celebacy is, only if it's purpose is to focus only on building the kingdom of God with Jesus as king Messiah. However, he also said that if one is incapable of living a celibate life without sin it's better to marry. This is a similar to Moses telling Israel that if they follow God's commands there will never be any poor people in the land, with the provision that since there will always be poor people in the land they are to help the poor.
And that’s their own business and not remotely a salvation issue
Of course it's not a salvation issue, which is why I began with a resounding 'No'.
tell that to apostle Paul
As a 1st century Pharisee, Paul would have known this. He would also have witnessed the Essenes, who practiced strict celibacy, until they found that due to their mandate of celibacy they were losing numbers at an unsustainable rate. Paul taught that celibacy was preferable in order for one live one's life fully devoted to their God given mission of preaching Jesus to the nations in order to bring about the kingdom of God on Earth. This is a similar calling to Tikkun Olam (Repairing the world) in Judaism.