Man can truly save lives (and humankind) by not forcing new children into the world

Making children (conceiving), simply put, is the untold mistakei we endlessly perpetuatei. The act of procreation is either an act of ignorance, or of selfishness, or both, and the detriment is obvious against the child who has no say in it, but who is obliged to struggle with the shortcomings of the flesh and burdens of the mind in a limited and unceasingly demanding earthly existence. What the child can never escape is decaying in old age and death—the sure painful fate we are setting ahead for each new-born.

This is an ultimate truth we don’t want to face, because it holds huge implications on both personal and social levels. And it’s infinitely harder to accept or stick to it. That should not stop anyone, however, from seriously considering the arguments below, whether a believer in God or in life’s random emergence from stardust (a naturalist [1] ).

Note: please bear in mind that all the arguments on this page are meant as food for thought, and were written in good faith. Under no circumstances ‘the second half of the truth’ should be interpreted as a call to action or used to impose one’s will over others.

All that happens to us or we do in this life is because of our having been born,
and not thanks to our having been born.

Naturalist views

Naturalism (philosophy): “is the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world.” [2] Meaning the naturalist is a person of science and logic.

But reproduction is in our nature

Reproduction sure is part of our biological functions developed in the long aftermath of a cosmological event (the Big Bang or other). Laws of physics and chemistry have run their course over many ages on this favorable grain of sand called Earth in order to produce the ever-existing lifeforms on our planet, while evolution pushed the resulted DNA molecule structure around until man rose. That’s the 1st half of the truth as science has determined.

As harsh as this may sound, we are an accident of nature. Which leads to the 2nd half of the truth: there is no true reason for us to come into existence (though all the reasons to accept and respect our existence), and no true reason to bring others into existence; no purpose, no goal to reach (apart from the ones we give to ourselves during our limited lifespan). After evolution gave rise to man, and man became conscious of self-transience (and of how everything just recycles), starting to understand that was just a matter of time.

Then, at the end of the cosmological twist eventually resulting in life and man, the result is flawed. Not only life ends up in death, but any life form is vulnerable to endless sorts of damage, and our limited, rather fragile emotional intelligence is prone to torment and despair. Even the most confident and smartest people find themselves helplessly driven by adverse emotions and poor instincts (tributary to the internal chemistry), against healthy reasoning.

Average, immediate logic dictates that one’s goal in life is to chase after a sense of equilibrium. That usually implies an aspiration to as good as possible living conditions, in order to avoid trouble and preserve the chances of a longer life. As in stretching our window of existence in maximum comfort, until the unavoidable bodily failures and death. However, that only confirms our fundamental imperfections, and, in the long run, (re)defines “living” as a palliative series of choices (living as survival; comfort/pleasure as birth-generated desideratum for agreeable effects, unable to sustain or integrate such effects into the self).

Highest logic says we need to break the cycle (of reproduction). Unfortunately, even when this logic develops, the aforementioned helplessness we bear towards our chemistry (hormones kicking in) or of our selfishness surpassing reasoning (which serves personal goals or from fearing socio-economic side-effects) causes us to remain trapped in our worst fallacy.

(supposition) Evolution or science might improve our attributes and capabilities

Suppose in theory that, in the future, either the natural process of evolution or the scientific breakthroughs will bring on the immortal man (in organic form, as human-machine symbiosis, or in any other way). Thus, overcoming the main flaws of frailty and mortality. The implications of such a thesis are quite unreasonable, part of them even worrisome, but, for the sake of argument, we can withhold the following:

  • the laws of nature will never change. Meaning, for instance, that the improved life form, in order to function, still needs a regular supply of energy and various exchanges with its ecosystem. That contradicts both invulnerability and immortality. A life form can never transcend its dependency to the environment that produced it (cannot be 100% autonomous for an indefinite period).
  • the result would most probably still be a finite, unitary entity/system, in order to preserve (some) individuality; if so, such a form can still be injured/damaged, killed/destroyed.
  • the purpose of the future man cannot be other than “to live” and pursue his pleasures, more complex pleasures or more simple pleasures (tranquility, stillness, anything is possible).
    • that doesn’t differ much from our purpose today, and would still not bring a greater peace of mind; on the contrary, by power of study and observation, we already know that people of higher intellect and cognitive sophistication deal much more often with existential questions (quite a consuming and unsettling occupation).
    • to be born as to not die is not a goal per se. Meaning, bringing even immortal children into the world is logically null. While avoiding death as an implicit goal makes sense only for the already living (its root originator is precisely giving birth).
  • then, reproduction would multiply the supposed immortal men and women up to impossible, unbearable numbers (while moving to other planets would just bring supplementary shortcomings into the equation; like the fact that life-supporting environments are limited and uneven in features). If they would stop reproducing at some point, and our purpose today could be seen as a reproductive bridge toward the future immortal man, that is highly illogical, as it means nothing to our current individualities and short-lived perceptions.
  • the biggest fault of this assumption is the huge number of people needed to be born and die in order to get there, which voids the hypothetical event in all sense. Not one child needs to be born (much less to die, even in old age) for the benefit of someone else, now or in the future.
Is the second-half-of-the-truth talking nihilism?

General nihilism (latin nihil=nothing) : “the belief that life has no meaning or purpose and that religious and moral principles have no value.” [3]

In its existential form, nihilism asserts that: [4]

  • Being, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value
  • there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator
  • a “true morality” does not exist (no action is preferable to any other)
  • objective secular ethics are impossible

The only piece of common ground between the ‘2nd half of the truth’ reasoning and (existential) nihilism is the lack of an objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value to the reproduction of human life. But emerged life matters and is of highest value, through life’s own sphere of sensitive and sentient characteristics; life doesn’t need to justify its necessity for propitious circumstances and joys (the expression of a superior construction), which, though narrow and fleeting (the expression of a faulty construction), are in legitimate opposition to their inferior, destructive alternatives (fear and pain, the expression of a perishable construction). The same goes with our choices in life—our actions do matter, in ways that nihilism fails to conceive as nihilism defectively tends to identify human life with complete emptiness and even denial of its prerogatives.

Another crossover with nihilism (under the ‘Naturalist views’ division) derives from the naturalist rejection of Divinity. And that’s where the similarities with nihilism end. Because, as already articulated, morality and ethics are an integral part of who we are and what we need, with the Golden Rule [5] (or a commitment to non-violence) as a rule of thumb supported by both religious and secular frameworks.

Special mention: such partial nihilism, just like most non-nihilistic views do, naturally implies humanism [6] (in its “humanitarian benevolence” sense). Humanists care for the good of others (1) and of the next generations (2), placing man over animals due to his (greater) awareness, self-inquiry, articulate communication and rational thinking.

  • (1) Doing good to the living others is clear: helping each other go through life, while highly regarding our more basic or more elevated needs, emphasizing esthetics and deploring our nature open to accidental, intentional and imminent harm (mortality).
  • (2) When addressing the good of the next generations, however, the highest logical good is to not bring them into existence (not harming life is ultimately not bringing forth new life, as to not initiate the path to the usual harms that any life has to endure). That unless one believes the unborn needs to be born for the future child’s own good, an uncalled-for, mysterious good (with its equally mysterious marking of the state of not being born as ‘not good’ or ‘less good’) concealed from our understanding—which is a contradiction to naturalist views, as that would mean to believe in forces beyond the natural and what can be studied.

Common grounds (both naturalist and believer views)

What would stop making children save us from?

From further regrettable, unnecessary deaths and sufferings (both physical and mental). Paradoxically, it would not save me and you, but it’s the only holistic, truly preventing and exempting-others-from-our-limitations solution we can give to the “save of the world” desire. Because any act of saving the already living could never be more than a partial and temporary effort, an incomplete fix unable to deliver anybody from the fire of deterioration and death. But we can always spare non-existent-yet others from this fire, simply by not pushing them onto its course.

Me, I can only think about the GOOD things in life

Then, you are among the lucky ones. And feeling good about life, perhaps not thinking or not even fearing death, makes you sail these waters we’ve been unknowingly thrown upon with grace and serenity. Which is great, your energy and/or faith can help others around you feel the same. But if you don’t feel lucky/blessed enough, or if you tend to avoid considering the many pains in your proximity or from thousands of miles away, it may be worth facing the ugly side of reality as seriously as possible. Because there’s plenty of it. And it eventually wins (decay, pains and death), with or without the terrors that one can easily experience throughout life.

The notion of good is relative and deceiving—always running out, never all-encompassing. Take wars. Take cancer. Take thefts, assaults, rapes or human trafficking. Take natural hazards. Take epidemics. Take economic crises. Take congenital malformations. Take rebellions. Take water contamination and resources depletion. Take the ever-increasing demand for counseling and psychiatric care. Take the millions of children in the world who go to sleep at night starving. Take all the medical aid aimed at just making agedness more bearable. Take hate, revenge, intolerance, discrimination. Good is also high maintenance—pushing (and paying) for good is our full-time job: police; state defense forces; judiciary courts; compulsory school; rehabilitation; medical care and research; laws and ever-adapting regulations; treaties; the UN; the Red Cross; disaster recovery funds; hazard readiness drills; etc. Good is thus a concurrence of circumstances, the same as it was when slavery was abolished, when nations started gaining their independence, when people fought for true rights and liberties, when education and arts flourished, when scientific breakthroughs increased life expectancy and reduced misery. Which clearly shows us that good is the exception; the exception to the fact that we can fall again however badly, should we not remain vigilant and sweat our heads off in keeping the so-far-achieved mechanisms stable and running. Without constant efforts, good is fully reversible. Because our rule is frailty, selfishness and instability, on top of an inborn ignorance and (uneducated) hostile primitivism. It’s in our flawed nature, further aggravated by an imperfect environment.

Nothing shows us better who we are and what we are made from than pain. Suffering is the most significant lesson in life. If, by some miracle, one doesn’t know suffering yet, one only needs to read the news. Or pick up a non-fiction book. Or visit a hospital, an under-developed country, or a weak-rule-of-law neighborhood. As long as there’s the slightest suffering in the world, that must be the haunting shadow on our minds, the bug biting out of all our other decorations and illusions. Then, time may spare us from watching our children on their deathbeds, but one should try imaging that first, before planning a new pregnancy.

Me, I can only think about the BAD things in life

Then, perhaps you’ve already concluded that having (more) children is unwise. For your own reasons or for reasons similar to the ones you can find on this page.

However, concluding that one’s life is not worth living would be a huge error. A mistake that 2nd-half-of-the-truth rejects in any aspect. Because, while this is about realizing the error of us bringing others into existence (as in material for serious beforehand consideration), it’s at the same time about honoring and upholding the already emerged life. Existing life is of highest importance, with its miraculous traits capable of awareness and perception, ever in search of peace and joy. Peace is the inner state of balance, it’s what keeps our boat afloat and steady without much effort; peace is also untroubling the surrounding waters, keeping us on serene terms with all the other boats. Joy is the gentleness, the aroma and the warmth of the wind in our sails, a wind we share just as much as the waters beneath. That unveils the most rewarding pursuit in life: to restore inner and outer peace, and to dwell on the beauty of suitable joys. To seek for the better when sorrow is present, for us and for the others next to us. Then, we may not even be aware of how much help we give others; we may think we only helped someone ages ago (or no one yet), when in fact we’ve actually brought light to the lives of several people, and could decisively help more until a ripe old age.

Finally, you may not believe in God, and think that you are free to harm your life in any way you wish. But ask yourself this: what if God does exist, hiding Himself from our eyes for reasons we cannot understand, and He won’t be happy at all that you’re wasting your life? (there might even be some burden on your afterlife shoulders for this, possibly coming from your own, higher conscience). Is it worth risking increasing your current sufferings? You would just run from whatever you find unbearable in this world to a situation that is unimaginably worse. Thinking about it, chaos doesn’t give rise to order (the universe formed out of chaos bears a striking resemblance to a Divine miracle), and neither logic nor science can deny the possibility of God’s existence. There is a grain of probability that God does exist, no matter how hard to believe it may be for some. Take a deep breath. Try to find some comfort in anything however small, and let time heal whatever it can heal. For the end won’t fail on coming upon us, sooner or later, without us ever needing to rush it.

The main reasons people have children (and what’s wrong with these reasons)

From the earliest times to the present day, the main reasons people have been having children (and the earth has been filling with their bones) are:

  1. Ignorance. Pure sexual desire resulting in unintended pregnancy. With or (tragically) without consent. Helplessly or recklessly following our animal instincts.
  2. To build/keep a strong/dominant family. Especially in olden times, when it mattered how many members a family or a tribe had; to gather or maintain land and resources, to have a stronger say in the communities’ affairs, to discourage others, etc. Offensively or defensively directed, this reason stems from fear and egotism.
  3. To have descendants/heirs. To carry on a name, a fortune etc.
  4. To help with chores (children as a resource). Especially in the countryside, in areas reliant on subsistence agriculture.
  5. To support the parents in old age. To help the weakened, sick or disabled elderly parents with feeding, washing, going places, finances etc. Indirectly, this includes the offspring’s contributions to the economy and pension funds.
  6. For either of the parent’s wishes to fill a void in their lives. Grown-ups can get overwhelmed with the feeling that something’s missing in their lives. But, instead of accepting the feeling as only natural to our existence (as the result of the irrational spiral of reproduction), they come up with the belief that adding even more people would be a good solution.
  7. For the parents to (still) feel useful to someone. Having children to keep the parents busy, rather than looking for a deeper rational and spiritual balance, and/or undertaking meaningful actions for those that already exist.
  8. Because children bring joy (children as therapy/diversion). Children are naturally playful, naive and unconcerned with life’s troubles (in normal conditions). While personal desire to experience with their cheerfulness and loving attachment is a selfish reason on its own, looking to feed on their joy and attachment can also be the expression of personal (conscious or unconscious) issues/deficits.
  9. Believers may see it as a Divine duty. This is a widely spread misconception, see Believer views (Christian perspective) [jump]. God never wished for us to struggle with sin and experience death. Then, God doesn’t need us to bring Him new worshipers to life so that He can prove or maintain any of His attributes; while our praising God and singing His Glory is for our own benefit, to find peace and to call for His will over ours. Nor does God require new life to strengthen His Church, for it’s the other way around—the Church is to strengthen and straighten the weak and the needy (which are the living), where believers are to be spiritually reborn before facing death (physical death is consequence and spiritual rebirth is necessity; both due to a physical birth marked by the fall).
  10. To benefit the community/society (children as social duty). Having children to pass our burdens to. To force them to undertake our failures. This includes fighting our wars, saving our people from perishing, maintaining the economy and social order, keeping our ways alive or even spreading our culture. Whereas, all the problems the society has are the business of the individuals composing the society at any given time, and of those existing individuals only.
  11. To earn respect. People claiming that their overall understanding and knowledge increases when having and raising their own children. People who wish others to see them as more respectable because they can build a family.
  12. To feel fulfilled (children as purpose in life). Some see children as the highest achievement that completes their existence. Either the fulfillment of self, of marriage, of life (‘positive’ selfishness), or the fear of personal shortfall (‘negative’ selfishness). The latter stems from insecurity and possible early traumas, wishing to overcome them through their own children (including a conscious or unconscious need to do better than their own parents).
  13. Because that’s the cycle of life (children as social norm/the result of peer pressure). The bandwagon effect and communal reinforcement. Also lacking access to better models and teachings, or misinterpreting them.
  14. To fix/strengthen the parents’ relationship. Wrong and unfortunate at many levels. Normally, there’s enough literature to advise against this even when not considering the present arguments.
  15. Because a child is a gift and a blessing.My husband/wife gave me this child. God blessed us with a child/children. While a new baby is definitely a soul from God, the fallacy to bring it into this mortal, broken world is ours. More on Believer views (Christian perspective).
  16. To bring a brother/sister to our other child/children. Children (again) as vehicles to carry the responsibility/burden of others’ comfort/happiness.
  17. Because the parents have (or life has) so much to offer. Among which, a bunch of pains and a sure death—easily overlooked by people in their prime, or simply considered an acceptable price because they believe it’s worth it for the benefit of the child. As already pointed out, that’s logically null. Be it the parent’s love, plenty of joy or tremendous riches, the initial need for such benefits doesn’t exist. As flawed mortals, we cannot actually offer a beneficial motivation (in the future child’s interest), nor eliminate the unavoidable frailty, decay and death. Then, if one has much to offer, the truly logical, meaningful thing to do is to offer to the already existing.

All the reasons to have children are either a form of ignorance, or of selfishness, or both. Whereas duty or sacrifice are not to be passed on to new children, but are for the already living. A new life should never represent the answer to the needs of othersi.

Mothers might say, “One must become a mother to understand.” Others could add, “When I had my baby(ies), it was the happiest period of my life.” While emotions cannot be denied, as already pointed out they lack the logic as to what the unborn child’s need to be conceived (then undertake the pains of life and later on die) was.

How about saving our species?

There’s no species’ feelings or drama, there’s only the individual’s feelings and drama. ‘Species’ do not want, nor seek salvation. The fear, concern and ultimate distress of maintaining a critical number of subjects in any given population only occurs at the personal level, and these are the product of intelligence. Not to be confused with the need for peer companionship (loneliness) that manifests in most vertebrates (especially when last in their habitat or bloodline), which is also an individual sign of distress. Whatever the case, all possible needs for such a salvation (that is, deliberate avoidance of lonesomeness/extinction) come down to the individual need for mutual aid, social interaction, sense of security and constancy—be it for the self or for one’s children. Yet the only guaranteed way (in our hands) to save other (new) individuals from all shortcomings and sufferings is not to initiate their existence.

We sometimes hear, “procreation ensures species preservation, which is an integral part of biological instincts.” But the whole process of mating and passing on genes is not at all part of some preservation instinct: the only instincts at play are sexual desire (libido), domination in males (leading to the reproduction of the strongest) and the maternal (nesting) phase in females (in certain species, males can show nesting traits too.) Hormonal activity, that is. In humans, reasoning too (with its higher self-awareness—higher ego, that is) leads to reproduction motivations, revolving around the main motivations listed earlier (void of any intrinsic value to the future offspring). As for why did nature put the needy hormones into our biological systems, that sends us back to:

  1. as science states, we are an irrational accident of nature, and the logical within us should cease from falling into its many shortcomings; any other conclusion, like putting our inferior instincts on an indirect, superior motivation (species preservation or another) opens the door to intelligent design, a naturalist-incompatible door that moves us to point b).
  2. we are the result of a superior, Divine rational product (if you prefer thinking of advanced races or extraterrestrial interventions, at the end of the hypothetical chain of but-who-made-them-then, a Divine initial action turns inevitable), for which the answer is in our fall of some sort (more on that under Believer views).
What if I’m pregnant?

God bless you and your future child(ren)! All is good. Tell it to your family and true-friends, and fear nothing and no one who might rebuke you—that will pass, and it sure is better to positively cope with the situation together with your close ones than just by yourself (much less under the pressure of a panicking boyfriend). That means there is nothing to decide about the developing fetus inside your womb; all you have to do is take full responsibility for the emerged life.

Your child(ren) will mainly need your love, care and help to learn avoiding life’s most common wrongs. And, whatever your material means, stay strong; you’ll manage. Also, you need to disregard the 2nd-half-of-the-truth reasoning altogether: it only makes sense when weighing the prospect of conceiving before it happens; afterwards, reasoning shifts to the meaning and inherent rights of existing life.

Of course, we don’t know for sure at what moment after fertilization we can speak of new life, acquiring the autonomous traits that constitute the individual. Some say it’s a new life from the very beginning, others argue that it takes weeks or even months—in which time abortion might be considered ethically acceptable and legal. But, unless one has an endangering medical condition, could anyone afford the risk of committing a crime? Bear in mind that no professional can confirm to you the lack of (latent) personhood of the fetus, no matter how young the fetus (it’s a mystery to medical science). To believers, God is already in there [63] . Whatever the angle, the whole thing is playing with life, and playing with life is so reckless and serious that it hurts. Deeply and at many levels. Just another reason why, next time, especially when not wanting children, one should fear one’s reproductive potential and prevent oneself from ‘playing the game’ of life and death.

Believer views (Christian perspective)

Death is the way God lets us know we are wrong

Pains of the mind and flesh. Death. There’s no clearer message God could send our way. We may have forgotten the first half of the truth—the exact, detailed chain of events of our creation and fall—but the many pains and death are there for us to see, whenever we choose to see: we are on the wrong path. Then, the Bible was given to us to teach us how to live our fall, stay out of sin and reconnect with God. That is, the Bible and the Church were made for man, to be his guidance, support and comfort in a most difficult, unfortunate journey, and not man must be born to confirm the Bible or the Church. Moreover, everything seems to indicate that it was never meant for us to procreate by our worldly means and desires alone (and maybe not meant for us at all, but that remains part of the 1st-half-of-the-truth mystery [69]).

Isn’t the Bible teaching us to have children?
  1. Be fruitful and multiply

The Old Testament contains early references of man being blessed by God to be fruitful and multiply [7], without obliging us to do so (it is not part of the ten commandments, nor an imposition that man is to be blamed for not having children). It also contains references about fertility, emphasizing the desire of the people of those times to have descendants. In the New Testament, such references fade greatly, down to a few affirmations on whether or not it is better to marry and have children. What the New Testament makes very clear, however, is that the most important thing is to seek salvation, for us and for the existing children of the world, because every child conceived out of man and woman needs God’s salvation (so He sent us Christ to fulfill and better explain the teachings of the old writings and beliefs [8] [9]).

Genesis taken literally: In the Old Testament, God’s directly addressed blessings to be fruitful and multiply to individuals occur in the first book only (Genesis), and they stop after Jacob’s twelve sons are born. If taken literally, the ones addressed to Noah and Jacob are said to them after they have finished producing offspring (thus cannot be seen as a prior instruction to them), while the one in the very first chapter (Genesis 1:28, during the 6th day of Creation) raises questions as to the chronological order and context of the blessing, also about Adam and Eve’s sexual capabilities (existing before versus emerged after the fall) [10]. As for perceiving fertility as a commandment (or infertility as a punishment), scholars have been struggling to give sense to (or attenuate) such views that cannot be sustained in one direction or another throughout the Old Testament [11], proposing various interpretations: that such a commandment is not for everyone (“[…]However, infertile couples must not assume that God is withholding His grace and favor, nor should they assume they are being punished in some way” [11.1], “nowhere does God condemn a woman because of infertility” [11.2]), that the fertility instruction was meant for the first people only or until “the Israelites had become fruitful and numerous. The command has long since been fulfilled” [11.3], or that it should be seen more as a cultural aspect of the past (“The pressure to bear children in Bible times was more cultural than theological” [11.2]) or as a metaphor for general blessing over people (“fertility was a direct metaphor for God’s blessing” [11.2], whereas in the New Testament “Biological lineage becomes less important than spiritual adoption in the Christian church” [11.4]). Another problem with the literal approach is the anachronisms (of debatable degrees among scholars) contained in the first chapters of Genesis (and in other chapters and books as the Old Testament progresses): the Garden of Eden is presented like an Israelite sanctuary [12], the six-day work week [13], the cherubim [14], the repeated usage of the later notion of ‘wife’; further suggesting human input on the texts’ meaning.

Now that a fruitful and multiply Divine imposition becomes unlikely, another belief tends to take over: that continuous breeding is part of the Divine plan (hence a dutiful practice to follow). Before considering such a belief, one must not forget that God doesn’t need us to make Him (new) worshipers so that He can be what He is or for His strength to increase (like deities from various ancient polytheistic religions were said to do). His Glory is eternal regardless of man’s actions, and the need to praise His Glory is ours, for the benefit of the existing fallen men and women; so that we can walk and resist on the path of faith, in His will over our will, in order to save our souls. The same goes for the belief that God wants us to bring new individuals as some sort of catalyst for love and mercy [66]. Nor does He need us to continue His work, as in passing to us a sort of task to perform in His place; especially not after man brought sin and death into the world, when man’s doings have turned anything but perfect. The only thing we, people, can do for God is to stay out of sin, cultivate love and help others in need (“And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you did it to me.’[Matthew 25:40]). All that, for the already existing souls of the world. As for the times when God worked directly through people, it was not thanks to us being many and righteous, but precisely because of us being many and wicked. Then, it was not the millennia of dutiful procreation that brought us Jesus (who didn’t come to celebrate man for being obedient and worthy, for that matter), but God’s merciful, self-sacrificial determination to bleed for our reckless perpetration of wrongs. Mortals and the sinful are pitiable. Mortals and the sinful are in need of salvation. In the fallen history, being many has never been the plan; turning as many to God (compassionately and un-coerced; starting with the self) is the only true plan for the living, as the Bible reveals and Jesus strongly underlines throughout the gospel. Creation was God’s plan; non-lustfully populating His perfect paradise under His direct Word (i.e. in Eden) is a possibility; but sin, death and multiplying in our fallen image is our doing, off His plan.

Genesis as allegory: When conceptually analyzed, the first chapters of Genesis are likely a late allegory of Creation (tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, but modern scholars increasingly see them as a product of the 6th and 5th centuries BC [10.1]). They do not follow a clear chronology of events, nor the exact elements as they occurred, while dotted with analogies. For instance, Adam means earth (Hebrew adamah), one man (Hebrew adam), mankind (Hebrew ha-adam) and even ‘to be of red color’ (Hebrew root adam) or ‘to make’ (Akkadian origins—first empire of Mesopotamia, 2334 BC) [15], while Eve (Latin name Eva) means ‘to breathe’ (Hebrew chawah) and ‘to live’ (Hebrew chayah) [16]. Then, we are presented with a series of episodes of various degrees of symbolism:

  • the contrast of man’s weakness and his poor judgment (whose sin is difficult to place, somewhere between the 6th day and later than the 7th day) opposed to Divinity’s sublime goal.
  • the corrupt descent singularity (though multiplying seemed to be a valid option when still in Eden, that doesn’t happen, resulting in the world’s unique lineage of tainted man—which is a narrative choice aimed at building an intended parable).
  • Adam and Eve’s sequential creation, with no use (or complete lack) of any sexual traits in Adam until the browsing of the animal reign in search of a suitable companion, concluded with the creation of Eve. Literally taken, that also introduces a contradiction to God’s omniscience as to how Creation should look like from the very beginning (man and woman, that is; not having to search among animals for a companion; not having to notice “It is not good for the man to be alone[Genesis 2:18] [emphasis added]—a clear sign of an allegory, for God is absolute and everything He does is good and thorough from the very beginning).
  • the emblematic serpent (that has no initial role nor is it foreshadowed with reference to Divinity, yet shows up with unprecedented particularities to get Eve’s most improbable—but convenient—undisturbed reaction at his interference).
  • we are told that Eve gave some of the fruit from the forbidden tree to Adam as well; signifying shared disobedience; it was important for us to understand that the disobedience was something we did in this formula—in man and woman’s togetherness (immediately followed by references to nakedness and sexual embarrassment).
  • Cain’s and Abel’s iconic story; the flood; the tower of Babel, and so on.

Genesis basically tells us a concentrated, metaphorically driven story about the initial, genuine perfect creation carried out by God, including the creation of man, corrupted or even hijacked by man. Hijacked, because “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall[Proverbs 16:18], thus man may have gotten haughty in a way that brought about his fall (perhaps by desiring to create life on his own [69.1]; or, by discovering and giving in to sexuality [17] [69.1]).

Also, one must not disregard the difficulty to grasp more precise historical occurrences about what we can read in Genesis. In fact, most similar references we can find are less in recorded history, and more in mythology, traditions and legends of one people or another (still existing or from the past), which seems to support the allegory hypothesis even more.

Not least, even when wanting to relate to Genesis as a story based on real facts, we realize that it could be difficult to understand and cope with a revelation of the exact events and motivations behind the creation and fall (after all, we accept that mortal, limited beings cannot fully understand Divinity—as the saying goes, “only God knows”, or “God’s ways are as mysterious as the pathway of the wind and as the manner in which a human spirit is infused into the little body of a baby while it is yet in its mother’s womb.[Ecclesiastes 11:5]), thus having to rely on an allegory. For the same reason, Jesus chose to explain many of the things He came to explain to us in parables.

Either way, literally or allegorically, sexuality is presented (and has since been cognized) as a shameful, separated from sacredness, desire of the flesh (for which reason, after Adam and Eve sinned, God Himself made them “garments of skins and clothed them[Genesis 3:21]). The fact has been cognized to such an extent by the Church, that most of the Church Fathers did not marry, then the Vatican asked for Catholic priests not to marry or to stop physical relations with their wives (and monks and nuns are by definition celibates, both in Catholic and Orthodox churches). Augustine, one of the Nicene Church Fathers, was even more categorical on the matter: “he was clear that if everybody stopped marrying and having children that would be an admirable thing; it would mean that the Kingdom of God would return all the sooner and the world would come to an end.” [18] For marriage, said Augustine, though “lawful and honourable”, it “cannot be effected without the ardour of lust…This is the carnal concupiscence, which, while it is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate [19], yet in no case happens to nature except from sin” [20]. Paul the Apostle tells us similarly: “For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. For I do not understand my own actions. […] So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.” [Romans 7:14-17]

  1. Children (fruitfulness) as gift/reward from God

The after-casting-out-of-paradise Bible contains several stories and praiseful verses for God’s help for a fruitful womb. In these texts, however, we move from the realm and will of the heavens to the realm and will (desire) of the fallen humans. Then, as already mentioned, “the pressure to bear children in Bible times was more cultural than theological” when “fertility was a direct metaphor for God’s blessing.” [11.2] People desired children for their own needs (same needs as always, see ‘The main reasons people have children’), and prayed for it and thanked God whenever it happened. Even if we choose to take some of the texts literally and believe in God’s help on the procreation matter (especially in regards to barren women), we still cannot understand or question God’s righteous intervention in the carnal union of any man and woman [21], but we know the result was no different: the fallen man’s offspring has always been subjected to sufferings and bodily death, with the need for spiritual awakening in order to achieve afterlife salvation (“And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,[Hebrews 9:27]; “Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.[John 3:3])—for the will, the demand and the physical conceiving remained of the fallen humans.

Again, the offspring as gift/reward view is much more present in the Old Testament; children seen as ‘deserved’ workforce and wealth, at the intentional end to fulfill a tribal need to carry the blood on and ensure the prevalence of one’s own customs. This image is representative of most of the world’s tribes throughout history. But, though one of God’s main concerns would be with regards to the actual interest of the new life (because any soul values more than the riches of the whole world [Luke 9:25]), nowhere are we told about a (in anticipation) requirement for unborn souls to ‘flesh-up’ and die into this world as the ‘reward’ of othersi. That, while having to work on their own salvation (once dragged into the corrupted world). Which strengthens the conclusion that many of the Bible’s texts are metaphors for the needs and habits (will) of the people, reflecting the preoccupation to match suitable events to unchangeable human nature.

Moreover, the ‘reward’ turns into a weapon (“Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate” [Psalm 127:3-5]). Its basic function sounds defensive (having and using offspring out of self-preserving fear—which is already wrong), but over several books [22] [22.1] we also learn about unbearable violence and vengeance (not to mention the many episodes of adultery and rape—sexuality as animalistic, sinful behavior). What’s even more astonishing, is that God is depicted as co-author (initiator, partaker, upholder) of man’s violence and vengeful side, seemingly justified when leading to some (presumable) good. For which reason, John J. Collins [22.2] “concludes that the Bible speaks in many voices” and that “historically people have appealed to the Bible precisely because of its presumed divine authority, which gives an aura of certitude to any position it can be shown to support — in the phrase of Hannah Arendt, ‘God-like certainty that stops all discussion.’ And here, I would suggest, is the most basic connection between the Bible and violence, more basic than any command or teaching it contains….The Bible has contributed to violence in the world precisely because it has been taken to confer a degree of certitude that transcends human discussion and argumentation.[22.1] [22.2] Reason why (unrelated to Collins’ book, but related to similar conclusions), the Vatican had to clarify that “One may never do evil so that good may result from it” [23] (nor punish others with the death penalty [24]), confirming once more that such views (selfish, worldly desires and actions) are man’s attributes—of man provenance alone; and that not all the Bible’s texts and authors should be taken literally.

  1. “Let the children come to Me” (Jesus, Luke 18:16)

We are now in the New Testament, where we witness changes in tone and perspective: abnegation, compassion and peace (over harshness, anger and violence), love your enemy (over retribution), the grace of God (over the wrath of God). God sent us Jesus Christ to make it clear for us where we stay in our fall, how to relate to the old texts and beliefs, to assure us of His Father’s eternal love, and to offer salvation to anyone willing to straighten their hearts—for which reason He has concentrated the commandments for the fallen: “Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”[Mark 12:29-31] . (The second one can also be seen as: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets[Matthew 7:12])

Jesus’s teaching about children is the most authorized and clear: He doesn’t preach multiplying, but helping the existing others to open the door to salvation from an early age (and making sure we do not hinder our young ones from it, for “children also have a sin nature [25], and are in equal need of redemption” and “Jesus knows that the childlike heart is the one that responds naturally to the gospel if someone does not get in their way” [26]). That we shall let our less knowledgeable and less mature, our more vulnerable, to know Him and further seek His light, grace and truths. “In the kingdom of God, the powerless are the most welcome of all and the leaders are not gate-keepers but servants (Mark 10:43–45)” [27] . He speaks of salvation, not multiplying, and He demonstrates that to us throughout His teachings, way of living His earthly life, and guidance to His apostles and others: in deep spirituality and peace of a pure heart, far from the worldly habits, temptations, or calls of the flesh.

Furthermore, when tragedy is near, Jesus pities those who have conceived children: “But turning to them Jesus said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For behold, the days are coming when they [28] will say, ‘Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’[Luke 23:28-29] (also: “How terrible it will be for women who are pregnant or who are nursing babies in those days![Matthew 24:19]) It is a sorrowful pity, without explaining if women not having conceived did better (“they [28] will say”, not Him directly; the most likely reasons not to clearly say it is better not to conceive are contemplated further below [jump]), but, should fertility and multiplying be our duty, Jesus would most certainly have pointed that out (and stressed that) in His teachings [29]. Which, once more, leaves the desire for children on us. Yet even the people of those times, known for their passionate desire to conceive offspring [30], facing misery and death would understand that, could they make the choice again, it would be better not to conceive (a late, harsh, still partial eye-opener about what fallen life has to offer.)

Then, the “fruitful” aspect has an entirely different meaning with Jesus (than in the Old Testament):

  • Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.[Jesus, John 15:4-5]
  • As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.”[Jesus, Matthew 13:23] [31]
  • ““Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?[Jesus, Matthew 7:15-16]
  • Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. [Paul, Romans 7:4]
  • But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.[Paul, Galatians 5:22-23]
  • (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), [Paul, Ephesians 5:9]
  • so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him: bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God;[Paul, Colossians 1:10]
  • But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.[James, James 3:17-18]

So, it is all about the fruit of the Spirit. And, “if you bear fruit, you love people and win people to Christ” [32]. Again, not because Christ needs worshipers, but because we need Him, to reconnect with God and overcome our sinful nature, so we can receive the kingdom of God [33]. For that is the true fruit that remains in eternity: “Paul outlines the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5 and reminds us in Ephesians that the fruit of the spirit is, in all goodness, righteousness, and truth – and we are called to go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain” [34]. It is the fruit opening the path to salvation, a fruit only the already-born need, precisely because of us being born into the fallen world.

Now that we know what the true fruit is, we may wonder about John 16:21 [John 16:21] : “When a woman is giving birth, she has sorrow because her hour has come, but when she has delivered the baby, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a human being has been born into the world.” We do not have a corresponding saying in the three synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark or Luke), but we already know that Jesus nowhere in the four gospels preaches multiplying. By these words, Jesus merely describes a familiar event from our worldly life (again, especially in those times when having children was considered a cultural thing) to help the disciples understand the idea in the previous verse, John 16:20 [John 16:20] : “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will weep and lament, but the world will rejoice. You will be sorrowful, but your sorrow will turn into joy.”.

  1. “But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” (Paul? 1 Timothy 2:15)

This view is part of the efforts to draw guidelines for the first post-Jesus Christian communities, and cited alone is way out of the context of the author’s many letters (the author, presumably Paul, refers otherwise on the matter of man-woman union in other epistles [35] ). The verse is worth mentioning due to its raising questions and difficulties (especially for not being in line with Jesus’s teachings and actions).

What is not difficult, is to determine that such a view is an ambiguous, if not bizarre inconsistency in Paul’s (should the author of this letter truly be Paul [36] ) Christian understandings:

  • A larger passage of the text is required: “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.[1 Timothy 2] The first issue that stands out from this text is that woman is depicted as a secondary creation in sequence and status. But, even when taking Genesis literally, we know that’s not true, for God created woman as the complement of man: “Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper as his complement.”[Genesis 2:18, HCSB] ; for the Hebrew word for ‘helper’, ezer, carries the idea of complementarity. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.[Genesis 1:27] makes it even clearer that man and woman are equal in value and dignity. So “the woman was not created to serve the man, but to serve with the man” [37] . Still in Genesis, we learn that Adam sinned just as much as Eve, by disregarding God’s interdiction (except that Adam was tempted by Eve instead of the snake). Finally, Paul himself preached (when referring to Jesus’s teachings, in the authorship-undisputed epistle to the Galatians) that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.[Galatians 3:28]
    • Also in the spirit of Jesus’s teachings and doings, as an apostle who taught the gospel of Christ to the first-century world, Paul knew that one (a person, a family, a nation, a gender etc) is not to be blamed nor disrespected for whatever people might think about one’s ancestors or previous deeds (on the contrary, the gospel disapproves such hardness of the heart and words even when dealing with real wrongdoers of the present).
  • The second issue that is striking in this text (repeated later in the letter as, “Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work.[1 Timothy 5:9-10]) is the author’s revisiting of the archaic belief that woman is duty-bound with bearing children. As already shown in the part addressing a presumed ancestral fruitful and multiply commandment [jump], such a belief cannot be sustained [11] . Scholars have been struggling to explain this verse, conceding that “It does not affirm that the act of child-bearing is a personal requisite for a female to be saved. If such were the case, single ladies, along with those who are unable to bear children, would be beyond the pale of redemption — a conclusion that is absurd”, and that “Such a circumstance, in many cases would place redemption outside the scope of individual choice — which is not a biblical option.” [38] . Moreover, such a claim simply passes over the gospels: not only it names a duty unspoken by Jesus, but translates the lack of children into a sin worse than some indicated under actually given negative (“not to”) commandments (because it holds woman beyond any chance of salvation).
  • For Christians familiar with Paul’s epistles, both the above issues lead to a few others: in Paul’s undisputed letters to the Romans and to the Corinthians, Paul points out that we “have died to the law [of the Old Testament] through the body of Christ”, that living in the flesh is living in sin (“I am of the flesh, sold under sin.For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.”, “For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being,but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members”), and that celibacy (chastity) is the preferred choice (“An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord”). Also, the familiar Paul did not believe in salvation by works (not the ‘giving birth’ kind of works, at any rate), but through faith [39] , “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.[Ephesians 2:8-10]

In light of the above arguments, the range of explanations for such a view is:

  • Most likely, the author of Timothy is not the same Paul who composed Romans, Corinthians and the other undisputed epistles (and, perhaps, the deutero-Pauline epistles as well). “Nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholarship questioned the authenticity of the letter, with many scholars suggesting that First Timothy, along with Second Timothy and Titus, are not the work of Paul, but rather are unattributable Christian writing some time in the late-first-to-mid-2nd centuries. Most scholars now affirm this view.” [36]
  • Leaving the authorship aside, we recognize the pattern of a borderline struggle: embracing the new while holding deep roots in the old. It is still common today to hear prejudiced opinions about the role of women in society and family, let alone 2000 years ago. And the struggle between old and new was even more acute for the early Christians: how to merge Jesus’s teachings with the old law (the Old Testament) in the guidance and customs of which many people of the time had been raised.
  • Some suggest that 1 Timothy 2:15 could have been referring to the birth of Jesus Christ, but the explanation is not supported by the future tense (“will be saved”) used in the verse, nor by the context (preaching childbearing as a general duty for women).
    • for the sake of additional argument, had the author indeed been referring to a long-required series of giving-birth-until-Christ-arrives, that would make a striking contradiction: the coming of Jesus Christ occurred precisely due to us multiplying and maintaining the fall, which is multiplying the deaths and the world’s sins which Christ came to redeem us from.
Why weren’t we directly told that we should not have children?

From all we know from the Bible, we were told beforehand about the (direct) ensuing effects of our noncompliance. It is impossible to establish the exact, detailed development and motivations surrounding the fall [69], including what changes it brought to our (sexual) physical traits or hormonal functioning (though we do find hints on such anatomical and physiological changes in the Bible, indicating that, initially, we could have had glorified bodies “empowered by the Spirit that owns us” similar to the ones that we will receive in heaven [40]), or how did the fall relate to the ability of self-procreation (was it possible before? If yes, by obeying a superior decision/participation of the Holy Spirit, as opposed to procreating by our means and desires alone?); BUT we don’t even need to establish such things, for sexuality is a source of concern in itself (for what it’s been since the fall).

Moses demanded his people abstain from sexual relations before their meeting with God [Exodus 19:15]. John the Baptist did not marry and did not preach multiplying, but repentance. Jesus did not marry and did not preach multiplying, but salvation and self-denial [41]. Paul the Apostle then said it loud and clear: “The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so[Romans 8:7], “For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death[Romans 7:5], preaching celibacy and continence as the preferred choices [35] .

But why weren’t we straightforwardly told so, from the fall until post-Christ Paul? The answer is related to the reason we can witness prey animals, congenital diseases, inequalities, calamities and many kinds of tragedies, for which we may raise our hands to the heavens asking “Why?”, yet getting no (apparent) answer—because we’re living the independent, disconnected-from-the-righteous-mediation-of-the-Creator consequences. After the fall, our disgrace (never a punishment with bad treatment or curse thrown in anger—for God is not such things—, only the consequence of an informed choice) distanced us from the Divine instruments that our higher, spiritual beings held before the fall, rendering us unable to receive His direct communication or to (easily) perceive and accept higher truths anymore. Without His direct guidance, man is an ocean of doubt and error (this is where praying helps, similar to an antenna seeking reconnection to the right frequency), and the world that was designed to be man’s environment goes down with him. In other words, the entire Creation including man and revolving around man, though perfectly assembled and fully functional, has lost its original justice [42] which only God can maintain. This can be referred to as the Separation.

The result? In his lower state and inferior, now incomplete dimension, man has begun to experience what drifting from the Absolute means. Man has started to malfunction and die; he turned perishable, for only God’s direct Word and trusted presence, as both continuous Architect and Maintainer, could prevent man’s constitution from breaking down (from returning back to the earth as elements he is created from). Man also placed himself out of God’s indwelling sense of justice (integrity, morality, righteousness etc.), for only God’s direct guidance and continuous infusion could prevent man from going astray in his daily judgments and routines (yet there is relief to that, as faith results in clarity and a strong moral center that helps with the mental and emotional burdens). Thenceforth, perishable and error became the defining characteristics of our fallen dimension; that not only introduced death into the world, but also gave meaning to the notion of evil—causing and undergoing evil became possible.

Since the Separation, we’ve been like machines lacking essential directives and supplies, because the workshop lost its main connection with the command center, while some of the functional lines deviated from the original design. And, what’s worse, we’re using this flawed setup as blueprint to produce copies—to bring offspring into our fallen image, that is. We do not seem to be straightforwardly told that, but the straightforward indication is prevalent: our separation from the Source, with our wandering on a path of sin and empty goals, is fully pointed out throughout the Bible and abundantly experienced in real life—both within the self and in every single cell or rock out there susceptible to hazardous behavior when not under God’s direct rule. A huge hint for us whenever we’re paying enough attention. A continuous reminder for eyes, mind and soul. As we can see, this is the kind of reminder that respects our free-will and appeals to our free-judgment, just as it was before our fall; except that, after trespassing the precept leading to our fall, now it must be merely an indication of our own realization.

We may still ask: why not a strong, pressing reminder? Still and all, if man made a rules-breaking, plan-damaging mistake, shouldn’t we be compelled to stop that? Another attempt at an analogy would be: as parents, when the rebellious teenager runs away from home, does it help to constantly follow him and impute upon his huge mistake? Or drag him back home just because the parents know better? Hardly, because he wouldn’t understand much and would repeat the same ardent mistake—for he’s burning with desire or obstinacy for whatever he’s got caught up in. Does it help to confine the unreasonable teenager, with limited freedom to act (as in (re)issuing a commandment against sexuality)? Again, not truly. First, in his heart, he would still run away from home, every day and every minute. He’s made a free willed choice. Second, that could turn into other (possibly worse) unpredictable misdeeds. And third, after having ignored all the received teachings and warnings (well-informed choice), he forcibly claimed the privilege (and deserves) to be treated as an adult. Then, being a runaway is the assumed choice. Seeing and living the inherent consequences will lead either to a lesson painfully learned or to perpetual misery—just as with disregarding any de facto (of practical nature) or violating any de jure (of legal nature) principles. The best the parents can do now is to send out messages of healthy conduct in line with the principles of the new (lower) situation: don’t do drugs, don’t turn violent, stay out of trouble, etc. (you shall not kill, you shall not steal, etc.; ignoring and trespassing those too would throw the trespasser into a yet deeper level of awful consequences). These teachings are, at such a time, much more important and pressing for the survival and integrity of the youth, as well as for whatever place he and his peers are shaping out there. Such instructions are also more likely to be accepted by the rebellious teenager in relation to the harsh realities, than admitting the underlying cause (the foolish desires clouding his reason). Bottomline, though obedience to righteous, loving parents ensures both practical and lawful peacefulness, the immature young man still chose to ignore their wisdom and fall. And, until his heart would get the truth of their knowledge and find the strength to swim back to such wisdom, the ramifications of his actions would keep his error spreading.

The Bible is about how to live our fall (and how to avoid its after-life extended consequences, by seeking salvation of the soul), not how to undo the fall. To a higher realization, but limited reception and embracing, it is too about how to avoid propagating the fall; however, even though the majority of people would understand that, as few who wouldn’t understand or couldn’t stick to that understanding would keep the fall going (thus requiring, in the end, God’s intervention, the second and final coming of the Christ to undo the fall; and the Bible provides an unusual apocalyptic vision toward such a conclusion).

Then, it becomes obvious why the directly received teachings (recorded in the Bible) have been mostly about salvation (not including clear, sharp re-enlightenment in regards to sexuality; which, at that time, merely the apostles could properly receive [43] ): because the need for salvation we can readily understand and accept, while sexual desire (with its related procreation into our fallen image) has been man’s flesh-ingrained consequence in Separation. And because salvation can be achieved regardless of our having given in to sexuality ourselves [43]. For if we are unable to see through Christ’s doings (the greatest hint toward celibacy and abstinence from the flesh’s desires), or are too weak to follow His example (well-understood by the Church Fathers [44], priests, monks and nuns), then we find ourselves in the ranks of the many who seek personal salvation [45] through Christ’s teachings. Not surprisingly, even in following Christ’s teachings and His light on the utmost (preferable, not mandatory) choices in this worldly life [41] [John 16:33] [62] , we would still end up in celibacy (or acting like it, when already married [1 Corinthians 7:28-31]) and would stop reproducing (without neglecting existing children); for that’s the higher truth, theoretically bringing inherited, ever-lasting salvation [45] within our worldly reach (should all people become faithful and overcome their weaknesses at the same time).

In summary, one reason not to be directly reminded [what our sexuality and procreating in our fallen image means] is that we’re actively living the mistake and are not in a condition to (easily) escape it (1), while another is that we need to learn our mistake by ourselves (2).

  1. To be clear, mutually consented intercourse is not a sin—it doesn’t interfere with personal salvation as Jesus offered it to us (apart from adultery and sexual immorality). If that was (related to) a condemnable sin once, it cannot be a condemnable sin twice, as we’re already living its first-time consequences [46]. Yet each time we’re falling for sex we’re de-escalating our spiritual endeavor toward the heavens (“The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so[Romans 8:7]). That’s because sexual activity harms our purity and clarity in connecting with God. When we submit to sexual desire, we bring glory to the flesh [47] [47.1] [47.2] .

    Sex is a lust of the flesh, where “Lusts are those appetites or desires we have by virtue of our fallen human nature.” [48] [48.1] While sexual desire is independent of our wish, it is a lust and not a need, for we do not need sex to survive—it is not the same as fulfilling biological requirements like the need for food, water, warmth, air etc. It is an urge burning in our flesh to connect and submit to the realm of the flesh. One can pray while eating or drinking water, but cannot pray while taking pleasure in having sex. Yet, whoever cannot control sexual desire should better marry, “For it is better to marry than to burn with passion[1 Corinthians 7:9], for such a control requires deep understanding, strong faith and discipline: “For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.[Jesus, Matthew 19:12, emphasis added] Many known and unknown people lived a holy life, steadily withstanding their natural inclinations and making “themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”.

  2. The Separation exists for as long as we choose to continue on our own (in our fall, that is). God loves us and always wants us to return to Him from wandering in sin, but God doesn’t force us onto the right path, just as He didn’t push us into falling. It has to come from within each of us—it has to be a personal choice, in free-will and intimate conscience. We alone need to recognize our wrongs and go straight. That applies to both personal salvation (personal accountable wrongs) and acknowledging sexuality as the engine that keeps man multiplying in Separation and death (unaccountable wrong, transmitted in man’s fallen image).

    Among those who recognized sexuality’s nature as a vehicle for perpetuum of the fall, many of the early Church Fathers already stated 2000 years ago that the original sin (“a state of sin in which humanity has existed since the fall of man” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin]) or its effects are transmitted to all of Adam’s descendants through sexual procreation (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage, Chrysostom, Augustine etc.) [44]. While their belief was that intercourse itself doesn’t stand at the origin of the fall (which origin remains a mystery of the 1st half of the truth [69]), the general consensus was that the fall brought carnal concupiscence in our limbs, a flaw we pass from generation to generation. Augustine, in particular, called carnal concupiscence the “daughter of [the original] sin” (and “whenever it yields assent to the commission of shameful deeds, it becomes also the mother of many sins”). Maximus the Confessor, another Church Father, reinforced the notion: “For our forefather Adam, having transgressed the Divine commandment, introduced into our nature another beginning of birth—in contrast to the one that had preceded it—constituted by pleasure, yielding to pain, and ending in death[46.1]. Later on, “The Council of Trent (1545-63) gave the official stamp to the idea that original sin was transferred from generation to generation by propagation – which means during the sexual act that led to conception. This formalised the notion of Original Sin as part of Roman Catholic doctrine” [49]; but that should only be understood as inheriting the inferior state and limitations of our flesh and reasoning due to the Separation, and in no way that children are born sinful (for they are born innocent; it is the damaging effects of the original sin they inherit, which bring the inclination to sin). Thus, carnal concupiscence (consequent flaw of the fall) + transmitting the state of fall (procreating in man’s fallen image) = vicious cycle of mortality and inclination to sin.

    As one can notice, this knowledge is not new. It is mentioned and obvious to the careful mind throughout the Bible, it is embraced by those choosing a monastic lifei, and celibacy is a de facto requirement for priesthood in most Churches (Vatican, Canon 1087: “Those in sacred orders invalidly attempt marriage” [http://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib4-cann998-1165_en.html]; the general explanation for this is to ensure their undivided attention in serving the Lord [50], but it is clear enough in the sense that the other direction (marriage) is to serve the worldly, the flesh, the attributes of our fallen state). Enlightened hermits which we may regard as deep mystics even say that the only rightful way to multiply, if that was the case for us to multiply, was supposed to occur in an angelic way, through Word and Holy Spirit (God’s Divine way for His creation), thus the kind of people should have been like the kind of angels (had people not fallen). The problem with this essential truth is that it’s hard to comprehend and, most of all, it is hard to reign over the powerful lust of sexuality. Or to resist the selfish desire for offspring/heirs. Additionally, preaching this truth from a clear and categorical position can be unsettling and even destabilizing, for, apart from “burning with passion”, people may misinterpret its meaning and sink into confusion in regards to their children, emotional response and social responsibilities. That’s because the power of acknowledgment resides within the self, and should the self not get a good grasp on realization, then reasoning cannot imprint to last. Then, as already highlighted, submitting to abstinence is not a commandment, though “The one who can accept this should accept it.[Matthew 19:12] (i.e. freely renouncing sex for the sake of God’s reign; of course, this works best when not already married, for in marriage one should not “deprive one another [defraud ye not one the other]”, “except it be by consent” [1 Corinthians 7:5 (ASV), 1 Corinthians 7:5 (ESV)], in order not to push the husband or wife to commit the sin of adultery due to lack of sexual self-control [1 Corinthians 7:1-5])

How about marriage?

So, loyal marriage is one spiritually legitimate (yet inferior to celibacy=abstinence) choice in life.

  • Inferior to celibacy, because such union comes from sexual lust, and sexual lust “in no case happens to nature except from [the effects of the original] sin” [20].
    • From the beginning (right after the fall), the Bible tells us that the union between man and woman starts with “knowing” each-other (knowing the other is a euphemism used for sexual relations).
    • Social norms and language have defined, up to this day, that marriage is not marriage without “consummation”.
    • Romantic love changes nothing—it is part of our worldly limitations and lust culminating in desire for carnal exploration (from kissing to sexual “knowledge”). [51]
  • Loyal, because it’s always been about “whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them[Matthew 7:12], which is the Golden Rule that implies not doing to others what you wouldn’t like others do to you, and simply not doing to others what they don’t like you do to them (regardless of your subjective preferences or what you might actually enjoy but the other doesn’t) — and the first damage in marriage is the sin of adultery (trespassing upon the trust, expectations and feelings of the other). With or without vows, with or without outside-of-the-couple official recognition, betraying the carnal confidence within an explicit (agreed lifelong companionship) or implicit (lifelong loyalty is implied by customs or expectations [52]) sex-involving union is considered adultery.
    • More than betraying the feelings and expectations of the wife/husband, adultery is a sin because it transgresses the Divine laws. God takes account of the mutual commitment between man and woman (a covenant in deep bond) and confers it a spiritual concern (two souls are now to depend on each-other for their passing through life). “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate[Mark 10:9] Then, we are warned that even divorce may result in adultery. [29] [29.2]

If marriage can be seen as agreed or implied (by convention) sex-involving lifelong companionship, what about sex before marriage, or sex without marriage?

  • “There is no specific prohibition in the Bible against sex between an unmarried man and unmarried woman. However, “sexual immorality” is denounced in about 25 passages in the New Testament. The word translated as “sexual immorality” or “fornication” in English versions of the Bible is the Greek word porneia, which means “illicit sexual intercourse.” […] The Bible consistently teaches self-control rather than self-indulgence (Galatians 5:19-24, 1 Corinthians 10:13). In Biblical teachings, the privilege of having sex requires the commitment of marriage.” [53]
  • Hedonism goes against morality. Lack of morality goes against spirituality. Gratifying the flesh weakens our Divine core, moving us further away from God. Even the vital needs of the flesh can grow into greed and excess, thus neglecting the spirit. “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?[1 Corinthians 6:19] It’s all in moderation and identifying the limits, “that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God[1 Thessalonians 4:4-5]
    • Without moderation and morality, there’s fornication even in marriage (deviant practices, swing habits, etc.)

Of course, the most important outcome of any man-woman carnal union takes no account of the state of being married or not. Having children derives alone from being “one flesh” in its low carnal sense [52.1], thus fully possible in non-marital sex—that is, regardless of any commitment or of having taken the step to turn the union into a sacred institution (religious marriage). Which is another indication that procreation in the fallen is linked to lust and to lower-self driven unsacred behavior (without which natural conception doesn’t happen). By means of sexuality, Divine active determination is replaced with human pride and imposture; Creational mechanisms are arrogantly expected to run their course under the inertia of their initial spin and in compliance with their integrated attributes, while the Creator is merely expected to fulfill the soul infusion part He assumed to allow in our in-His-image freedom. We’re taking Creation and God’s pledge of freedom for granted. What has never been meant to be taken for granted, is what we choose to do with the Creation in our freedom; for, while all was given with love, all was given with (originally simpler) responsibility too. Some things are legitimate, while others are not. Today, failing in our responsibility to stay out of sin adds to the afterlife payment. Before the fall, choosing an illegitimate path has costed us the original justice [42] — which translates into the absence of preternatural gifts (immortality, integrity and infused knowledge) [54] in our children. Nevertheless, a child is always a piece of God: an angelic soul (and its spirit) that we ‘collect’ from God, in ignorance and selfishness, to clothe this soul from God with mortal flesh from us. [At the intentional end, the procreating drive and the desire for heirs point toward a primeval-desire-to-imitate-God’s-power-to-create-life theory [69.1] ]. One must immediately acknowledge the new life’s maximum importance at both the spiritual level (for it’s a spirit from God; “The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.[Romans 8:16];and that’s our true heritage, our way through and out of this fallen existence: “Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.[Romans 8:17]) and at the corporeal (body and mind) level. Officially married or not, conceiving creates implicit, immediate spiritual and social obligation toward children and the ‘partnership’ as a whole (which reinforces the necessity of a conscientious and legitimate union between the parents).

Now, we can see how sexuality has been a thorny issue for the Church, and why marriage required attention. Historically, “marriage had little to do with love or with religion. Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs.” [55] Women were most of the time regarded as sexual instruments, also as important ‘possessions’ in ensuring the bloodline, labor capacity and fighting capacity of a group (through offspring). Then, marriage was a practical way of keeping family ties, making alliances and getting in-laws. In Western civilizations, polygamy was also still present up until the 9th century, with the old nobility fighting the Catholic Church on the matter of getting a second wife. “Many of the largest Christian denominations [today] regard marriage as a sacrament, sacred institution, or covenant. However, this was not the case in the Roman Catholic Church before the 1184 Council of Verona officially recognized it as such. Before then, no specific ritual was prescribed for celebrating a marriage.” [56] Before then, to the Church, “a man and woman were married if they had exchanged “words of consent,” even if they had done so out by the haystack, without any witnesses or involvement by a priest.” [57] Also, “People could marry by mutual agreement in the presence of witnesses; they could have sex at once and there was no need to wait for the Church’s blessing. This system, known as Spousals, persisted after the Reformation and endured well into the 18th century.” [58] At the Council of Trent in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canonical law. “Church blessings did improve the lot of wives. Men were taught to show greater respect for their wives, and forbidden from divorcing them. Christian doctrine declared that the twain shall be one flesh, giving husband and wife exclusive access to each other’s body. This put new pressure on men to remain sexually faithful.” [55] It will take 300 more years until love and happiness would start playing a significant role in marriage [59].

Whatever the changes and social progress, the Church has held a good grasp on the underlying truth from its early days, relating to Jesus and Paul the Apostle’s teachings and models: “For the first 16 centuries of its existence, the Catholic Church held that marriage was inherently tainted by what Pope Gregory the Great deemed the degrading “carnal pleasure” that took place under its auspices.” [57]; at the same time, “To implement Jesus’ prohibition of the age-old customs of divorce and polygamy, the early church ruled that the validity of a marriage did not depend on the ability of a couple to procreate” [60]; historian Coontz further details in an interview for LiveScience, “The early Christian church held the position that if you can procreate you must not refuse to procreate [an ambiguity stemming from the Church’s struggle continuing to this day on how to relate to evangelical truths in contrast to old believes, how to combat people’s inclination to indulge in carnal pleasures by opposing them the presumably intended reason of procreation, as well as how to preserve the shared desire for an enduring community alive]. But they always took the position that they would annul a marriage if a man could not have sex with his wife, but not if they could not conceive [realization prevails, for marriage is not preached by Jesus and Paul in order to procreate, but to avoid sexual unrest and immorality].” Historically summarizing:

  • The Catholic Church understood the sad nature and origin of sexuality, to a point that, initially, it tended to be restrictive and manifest opprobrium against it. (Some other Christian denominations were even more categorical about it [61]). Later on, the Church has better adopted the compassionate, supportive and accommodating side of Christ’s model and teachings (for sexuality is not a sin, but a condition of the fallen), looking to fit marriage into spiritual life and educate people against sinful habits.
  • Going against older beliefs, the Catholic Church has started to accept that marriage is not contingent on producing offspring. Confirming that procreation is not a duty (much less a commandment). Marriage’s role was rather to keep our sexual unrest away from immorality, as Jesus and Paul taught, in order to avoid fornication and adultery.

In conclusion, sexuality (with marriage as its legitimate, morally bound frame) is an inconvenience we need to live with. The wise and faithful have been preoccupied to settle them in sober terms (starting with Paul), to bring sexuality in the light of responsibility and mutual respect, while pointing out that sexual relations should not be more than temporary “slipups” from one’s spiritual life—in order to achieve personal salvation, that is; as for the eternal hope for inherited salvation [45], that moves outside of our control whenever we choose sex and procreation (thankfully, the hope stays with God that He will eventually deliver humankind from our own fall). The Church did not invent marriage, but transformed its ways to keep it on the bright side, just like Jesus has illuminated the path to salvation (that anyone may work their way onto, to the best of their judgment and power to overcome weakness).

  • “Thus hath our Lord in His mercy mingled much gentleness with His precepts that it [celibacy] might not be all merely of commandment, but that we might do much also of our own mind [emphasis added]. Since it was in His power, had He not been so minded, to extend the commandments further and to say, “he who fasts not continually, let him be chastised; he who keeps not his virginity, let him be punished; he that doth not strip himself of all that he hath, let him suffer the severest penalty.” But he did not so, giving thee occasion, if thou wilt, to be forward in doing more. Wherefore both when He was discoursing about virginity, He said, “He that is able to receive, let him receive it:” and in the case of the rich man, some things He commanded, but some He left to the determination of his mind. For He said not, “Sell what thou hast,” but, “If thou wilt be perfect, sell.”” [St. John Chrysostom, HOMILIES ON FIRST CORINTHIANS]
  • “Virginity is the rule of life among the angels, the property of all incorporeal nature. This we say without speaking ill of marriage: God forbid! (for we know that the Lord blessed marriage by His presence [see John 2:1-2], and we know him who said, Marriage is and the bed undefiled [see Hebrews 13:4]), but knowing that virginity is better than marriage, however good. For among the virtues, equally as among the vices, there are higher and lower grades. We know that all mortals after the first parents of the race are the offspring of marriage. For the first parents were the work of virginity and not of marriage. But celibacy is, as we said, an imitation of the angels. Wherefore virginity is as much more honourable than marriage, as the angel is higher than man [emphasis added]. But why do I say angel? Christ Himself is the glory of virginity, who was not only-begotten of the Father without beginning or emission or connection, but also became man in our image, being made flesh for our sakes of the Virgin without connection, and manifesting in Himself the true and perfect virginity. Wherefore, although He did not enjoin that on us by law (for as He said, all men cannot receive this saying [see Matthew 19:11]), yet in actual fact He taught us that and gave us strength for it [emphasis added]” [The Sacred Writings of Saint John of Damascus]
  • Lack of lust and absence of marriage are the true state in holiness. “When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” [Mark 12:25]; “Jesus said to them, “Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. Indeed they cannot die anymore, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection.[Luke 20:34-36, NRSV] [62]
So, just how wrong is it to procreate?

While in the aftermath of the fall there is no condemnable guilt for giving in to sex and procreating, planned or accidental parenthood is a link that is ever in our power to keep or break perpetuating the fall (the Separation); it is also the (2nd degree, after the fall itself) precursor to our children’s struggles in a world corrupted with sin, culminating in sure physical death and the need of salvation of the soul. For it’s that simple: the fall brought death and Separation, and we keep passing death and Separation over to new others.

  • The mistake is in our prior lack of consideration in regards to sexuality and fallen procreation, never on the conceived child (children are not a mistake themselves; what’s more, once conceived, the miracle of life is God’s touch, and to deliberately damage this miracle is a terrible burden and a sin of criminal proportions [63] ).
  • The error is not reflected in the direct outcome (children), but in their condition (mortals, prone-to-sin nature) and quality of existence (frailty and limitations).
    • Life is from God – God is life — God is good — life is good. Death is from man — death is contrary to God’s plans — death is awfully wrong. Thus, it’s our delivering of new life in a sad, perishable package and on a corrupted stage that is amiss. This responsibility lies within the fallen image of the parents (who subject their children to the same flawed existence). [In order for new life to avoid our bitter deadly “offer”, the power of giving life must fully return in God’s perfect hands; we know life under His reign was perfect and we know it will be again that way, yet we don’t seem to understand it is us choosing to perpetuate the Fall and keep His full reign away.]
    • Children are born pure, without guilt. The child’s later struggle with sin, which sinful inclination he must keep in check until his last breath, comes from Separation (the nature of fallen humans).
  • The parents and society become accountable when not providing love, proper care, and a compassionate path (in pure thoughts and heart) toward (discovering) God and His law of mercy between ourselves. That’s because these things play a direct role in the survival, healthy guidance and integrity of our young ones, and an indirect role in their later deeds and salvation.
Instead of conclusion
We think we’re bringing out life, but we’re actually bringing out death
Wherever there’s death, God grieves and lends a forever loving hand
We multiply in our fallen image, bringing children to a corrupted, sin-prone existence
God gives us His grace “to respond to His call to become children of God,
adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.” [64]

We must note the order of things. Yes, God offers salvation (praise the Lord) and man’s highest goal in life is to seek salvation, but that’s only because we’ve caused and maintained the need for salvation with each newborn. Yes, God offers consolation to the ones living a miserable life (for their reward is in the kingdom of heaven should they follow the path of faith and good), but they must endure misery in the first place due to our perpetuation of the corrupted world. And, yes, Christ has conquered death, yet our lives end in physical death just like before; why is that, we may ask?

  • “Death is a consequence of sin. […] Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin. “Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned” is thus “the last enemy” [1 Corinthians 15:26] of man left to be conquered.” [Vatican’s CCC 1008]
    • Jesus has conquered death’s most important “sting”, which is the second-death—the spiritual one. “When Christ conquered death for us, He removed the “sting of death,” sin (1 Corinthians 15:56)—that is, we will not be judged by God according to our sins; rather, we will stand before God robed in Christ’s own perfect righteousness.” [65]The one who believes in me will live, even though they die[John 11:25]
    • The traits shaping each of us in this fallen world still need to end (physical death), after several decades of earthly existence, for “certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death [as the final consequence to all others], and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, ‘the tinder for sin’” [Vatican’s CCC 1264]
  • “The obedience of Jesus has transformed the curse of death into a blessing” [Vatican’s CCC 1009]
    • Meaning, physical death is liberation from the frailties, pains and sinful nature of our worldly lives, at the end of a moral and faithful existence (!with suicide counting as sin and crime — we must bear our cross, while trusting God’s love, to the very end of our physical lives).

Christ conquered the second death first to win us over our mistakes in reverse order. Like shepherding lost sheep back home, starting with the farthest obstacle. The second (spiritual) death is now avoidable in Christ, through faith, keeping the commandments and repenting (“But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin [i.e. because man-born is continuity of sin and death], the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies [i.e. He will give glorified bodies in resurrection [40] ] through his Spirit who dwells in you.[Romans 8:10-11]). We were told and are waiting for His return to remove the first (physical) death too, as a result of His final judgment and abolition of all the effects of the primeval sin—for “the Kingdom of God will come [a/n: or be restored] in its fullness” [Vatican’s CCC 1042]. Humankind needs that because, once born under the circumstances of the primeval sin, we ourselves cannot undo its effects (for these effects define our world and are ingrained in our very skin). Also because the necessity of a self-assumed effort toward ‘inherited salvation’ [45] (self-rejection for the sake of the restoration of the Divine will and perfection in regards to life-giving and all the Creation) is not something that we can easily recognize, hold on to, and share (with anything less than freely, willingly and in good faith drifting into abomination). Nevertheless, until His return, it’s in our power and responsibility to better discern the whole ‘puzzle’ God made clearer to us, which is to understand that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable[1 Corinthians 15:50]. Understanding all that should actually hasten the return of Jesus Christ with the establishment of His kingdom, as such understanding contributes to both the conditions of “living with the mind of Christ” [Vatican’s CCC 2046] (“[…]and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven[Matthew 19:12] is part of Christ’s mind) and to be “praying for the Lord to come” [Vatican’s CCC 671].

No soul needs the fallen us to bring them into existence. To make an analogy, the unborn souls are perfect just where they are—with God (though there’s no such thing as unborn souls, it’s just God; ‘inexistence’ is with God too, for there’s no beginning and no end in God). While the born-to-the-fallen need to take a bitter detour until they can reunite with God. God’s traditionally accepted motivation to create man so that man can freely discover and rejoice at His absolute, infinite love and beauty involved immortality and a state of holiness and justice (assuming His Word and Spirit wouldn’t be disregarded). Neither the same heavenly conditions, nor the same motivation quality (direct experience of the Divine, direct communication with Him etc.) can come from our inferior parenthood. In the fallen, discovering God’s love, beauty and righteousness is a completely different (yet only true) joy: a joy in consolation, in hope against despair—the necessary spiritual rebirth in weeping over man’s sins, turmoil and pains, while crying for salvation (“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God[John 3:3]). That’s because our parenthood is not the real thing : fallen people bringing others to a corrupted, mortal life is just not what God meant that to be (thus Jesus moving our attention to the real thing applicable to our sorrowful situation—salvation in spiritual richness, with deeply and extensively rejecting this lower state being the higher choice whenever we are ready to “accept that” [Matthew 19:12]; the truth is there, clear and logical to anyone who wishes to see it).

Man brought death in the world not just once. Man has been bringing death and a continuous struggle with sin ever since our fall. Except it’s been a lot harder to refuse the (current) fruit bearing death and sin, for, in contrast to Adam and Eve, who initially had to keep away from a fruit outside their Godly ordained system (outside their direct perception/awareness), erotic lust is a temptation that stirs up the fallen from the fleshly-governed inside [67]. We first picked up the fruit of death and sin when we had no attachment to it (whatever the fruit was); now to consciously refuse sexuality is a consuming struggle with a strong attachment. “For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing [weaknesses and desires of the flesh] I hate. […] Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin [the strong attachment to our lower state] that dwells within me [Romans 7:14-20]. Yielding to the deceptive fruit is not to be blamed (now, in the future, or in the past; that includes Adam and Eve, who failed themselves even though they were created as adults in a higher, privileged state—their trespassing is up to God’s judgment only), for, as Jesus said, no one is righteous (“good”) in this world [Mark 10:18]. In Separation, we are weak and making mistakes is what people do. For that matter, far from using our weakness as an excuse for everything, and because our weaknesses can easily turn into accountable sins, our first and foremost duty is to keep His commandments; with love, humbleness and compassion. Then, perhaps we can remember the fact that each personal [68] triumph over sexual ardor is one triumph over the wound of the fall, both to our spiritual gain and, above all, in avoiding causing more humans to become “subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin” [Vatican’s CCC 405] (at best causing more humans to undertake the same spiritual battle we all need to pursue, so that in Christ “and aided by God’s grace, that they succeed in achieving their own inner integrity”—i.e. salvation after a flawed, painful existence they were ‘offered’ by the fallen us).

God help us all!


Footnotes/References:

  1. In the New Testament, Jesus has concentrated the commandments as such: “Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” [Mark 12:29-31] The second one can also be found as: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” [Matthew 7:12]
  2. Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.[Matthew 5:17-20]
  3. When trying to place the literal events of the Creation and Fall in order, also to understand if man had sexual/reproductive capabilities before the fall, we must start with Genesis 1:28 (“And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it[…]”). Also, we must refer to the fact that, in Genesis’s 1st chapter, nothing on earth was out of His Word—meaning potential offspring could not have been brought to life by man’s will and means alone, but ‘backed’ directly by God (Who insured the fact that man wouldn’t die before the fall, like man did after the fall when men and women had started bringing new life into the world by their own desire and flesh-driven sexuality). Thus, when interpreting Genesis 1:28, one meaning could be that such a Divine directive was meant for men and women before the fall (i.e. not for the fallen). Though the interpretation makes sense (having children only in line with God’s perfect creation, not subjecting them to sufferings and death), literally taken it seems to be denied in its exclusive, superior motivation by several other blessings using the same words that will be addressed to people after the fall. Then, perhaps the Genesis 1:28 (‘be fruitful and multiply’) directive was meant for the after-the-fall Adam and Eve (as the first chapter doesn’t contain the chronological events occurring in Eden), but that again seems to be denied at the end of the first chapter (at the end of the 6th day, the day man and woman have been created, it is said “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good[Genesis 1:31] [emphasis added], so the fall must have not taken place yet). As a result, we must hold to the hypothesis that the Genesis 1:28 blessing was (first) meant for Adam and Eve right after they were created, still in Eden. That too poses issues: literally taken, the 2nd chapter (the accepted theory among scholars is that the 2nd chapter gives more details about the 1st chapter) makes God’s decision to instill multiplying abilities in humans look like an afterthought, for there was no woman until He first started looking within the animal reign for a companion to Adam, who must not have had reproductive organs until that point (until after running out of options from within the animal reign and turning His attention to creating the woman; He also makes the remark “It is not good for the man to be alone[Genesis 2:18] [emphasis added], which both indicates sequence of events [an afterthought] and questions God’s omniscience and perfection-from-the-very-beginning in everything He does); then, during the 2nd and 3rd chapters, we learn that the fulfillment of the fruitful and multiply[ing] directive (that could only be put in practice after God first “formed the man of dust from the ground”, secondly “put the man whom he had formed” in Eden, and thirdly formed the woman), although now possible after having man and woman, (multiplication) doesn’t happen until after the fall (until after the 3rd chapter). Scholars needed to argue that the fact of not having children in Eden must have been due to the fact that the serpent acted quickly, the interpretation of which raised more questions about the day/time of the fall (during or after the 7 days of Creation). To complicate literally-taken things even further, in the 1st chapter, right after the fruitful and multiply blessing, we read about the intended food for us (“And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food[Genesis 1:29]), but the restriction on the tree of knowledge is completely absent. Which, on the other hand, exists in the 2nd chapter but without any mention of a “be fruitful and multiply” directive. And the problems do not end here: it is only in the 3rd chapter, after committing the error of eating the forbidden fruit, that Adam and Eve discover the erotic sense of nudity (or that such physical/hormonal traits emerged [as the actual man-woman split] due to the fall of their bodies from a strong, glorified level to a weak, divided status, unable to maintain their bodies’ ‘compliancy’ with God’s initial unity) and the associated sensations. For this very reason, God Himself made Adam and Eve “garments of skins and clothed them[Genesis 3:21] (the earliest clue that sexual lust is unworthy; in general, the earliest clue that fleshly manifestation wrongly overtook spiritual manifestation). Also, it is only now that the man (Adam) “[…]had named his wife “Eve,” because she was to become the mother of everyone who was living[Genesis 3:20, ISV] (after discovering/triggering sexuality, that is), seemingly strengthening the fact that the woman (Eve) was only now (i.e. starting with the existence of physical attraction that turns into intercourse, hereafter named by the Bible as “knowing” the other) perceived with a child-bearing aptitude. (That also further clarifies Genesis 3:16’s “I’ll greatly increase the pain of your labor[…]It will be painful for you to bear children” in that the verse was not referring to any previous labor or pain, but only to future pains [10.4]) Then, regarding the carnal union between man and woman, back in the 2nd chapter (before the fall and any sexual attraction), we encounter a strangely placed “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh[Genesis 2:24], which is recognized by scholars as an aside about the future of men and women made by the author [10.2] [10.3] (tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, while modern scholars increasingly see it as a product of the 6th and 5th centuries BC [10.1]). That must be because the author felt it necessary to explain a point in narration, highlighting a well-known later effect, which serves to provide guidance and teach morals to the contemporary fallen; it equally sounds like a motivation (still addressed to the later fallen) for having included the preceding depiction of the forming of Eve out of Adam; later, Paul will say that this was actually meant in regards to Christ and the Church, and not to carnal union [see Ephesians 5:31-32]. In conclusion, literally-taken Creation and Fall are at least confusing when trying to understand how the matter of having children was first intended for us and the order of things, but quite clear on the fact that sexual attraction is an attribute of the fallen, and that parenthood in man has since had much more (if not everything) to do with our earthly ways after the casting out of Eden. Paul will later address the matter directly, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus[Galatians 3:28] [emphasis added], because Jesus is reunification in and with God, with what things were initially supposed to be (no sexual attributes).
    1. “Tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, as well as the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and most of Deuteronomy, but modern scholars, especially from the 19th century, onward see them as a product of the 6th and 5th centuries BC” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis]
    2. “Verse 24 is Moses speaking, not Adam (who didn’t have a father and mother to leave). It is Moses’ commentary on these events.” [https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-2-god-s-design-marriage-genesis-218-25]
    3. Therefore. This word signals that Moses is adding an aside to his narrative.” [https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/ray-ortlund/what-is-marriage-according-to-the-bible]
    4. He told the woman, “I’ll greatly increase the pain of your labor during childbirth. It will be painful for you to bear children”[Genesis 3:16, ISV] or, in ESV version, “To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children[Genesis 3:16, ESV] Though “multiply your pain in childbearing” may create confusion when no previous birth took place, the second part makes it clear that the “increase/multiply” indication is meant to highlight the magnitude of future pains in which the woman “shall bring forth children”. Not as a change in any existing childbearing rules/parameters (the text doesn’t say “from now on”), but as a completely new situation that will be accompanied by pains (the novelty is confirmed a few verses later, “she was to become the mother of everyone who was living[Genesis 3:20]; a clearer hint that the fall and sexual reproduction must be strongly related). This is a common procedure throughout the Bible, called parallelism—the second part (“in pain you shall bring forth children“) is provided to better explain the first part (“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing“). To help with the reading difficulty, the Common English Bible reads, “To the woman he said, “I will make your pregnancy very painful; in pain you will bear children.”[Genesis 3:16, CEB]
    1. https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691164830/reconceiving-infertility (Reconceiving Infertility: Biblical Perspectives on Procreation and Childlessness, by Candida R. Moss and Joel S. Baden)
  4. C. Jack Collins, Reading Genesis Well: Navigating History, Poetry, Science, and Truth in Genesis 1-11 [link]: “[…]many have noted that Genesis portrays the garden of Eden as if it were a sanctuary: one entered from the east, with cherubim present (Gen 3:24; Exod 27:13; Ezek 11:1); Yahweh “walked about” in it (Gen 3:8; Lev 26:11-12). Perhaps the trees of the garden are like the lampstands, and the gold, precious stones (for onyx and gold together in the priest’s garments, see Exod 28:20; 39:6, 13), and rivers also correspond to furnishings in the tabernacle. As the Israeli commentator Yehudah Kiel put it, “The ‘garden’ was therefore the first place on earth where the Shekinah dwelt.” The first audiences would have known the Israelite sanctuary and would have read of Eden in terms of that. That would enable them to interpret their sanctuary as a kind of heir to the garden (a homology).” Then “The promised land is to be a kind of reconstituted garden of Eden, a fruitful garden that displays God’s presence to all the world. Identifying Eden’s location suffers from difficulties because two of the four rivers are unknown (Gen 2:10-14). This lends an air of mystery to the text, and we might wonder whether the name Gihon for the second river (Gen 2:13)—one of the unknowns—might have been chosen to evoke the Gihon spring in Jerusalem (1 Kgs 1:33), which was a sacred spot even before the temple (1 Kgs 1:45).”
  5. C. Jack Collins, Reading Genesis Well: Navigating History, Poetry, Science, and Truth in Genesis 1-11 : “Colet [Dean John Colet] has the most extensive application of his literary assessment, calling Moses [as the traditionally credited author of Genesis [10.1] ] “a good and devout poet.” He followed Augustine (and perhaps Philo) in thinking that it suited the Creator to make all things at once and that the six days are a literary device fitted to the understanding of the “rustic” audience. Colet regularly uses Latin words related to fingo, “to imagine or portray,” and he sets out, in his third and fourth letters, to address what he believes to be the rhetorical purpose of the account: It was the design of Moses, (1) to speak worthily of God; (2) to satisfy the minds of ordinary people, in respect of matters known to them; (3) to preserve an order in events; (4) above all, to lead the people on to religion, and the worship of God. Another reason … was that, by imitating God, whom poet-like he portrayed as having worked six days and rested on the seventh, the people might be led to rest on every seventh day, and to the contemplation and worship of God. With consummate ingenuity, as well as devotion, he portrayed God as spending six days on the fabric of the universe, and to have rested on the seventh, that he might, in the first place, commend to the minds of men a religious rest on every seventh day; and might also convince an ignorant multitude, by the authority and example of God, that every seventh day was consecrated to divine worship and contemplation.”
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherub; Genesis seems to have borrowed the Cherubim concept from Babylonian/Assyrian mythology, which contains references to such fantastic, gate-guarding hybrid creatures.
  7. If God designed sexuality in us from the beginning, it must have been linked to higher, Divinely-guided spiritual means (thus different to what we know sexuality to be today; a possibility is that we initially had glorified bodies lacking carnal needs, similar to the ones we will get (or re-obtain) in heaven [40]), and/or as a measure of the strength of our free-willed spirit—for self-procreation (as in abandoning God’s direct creational involvement) was the only danger of creating us in His image with similar capabilities (only similar, because God is only one, and the way He created man in His love, man had no need to be more like God than he was, for man was living with God).
  8. “Augustine was clear that if everybody stopped marrying and having children that would be an admirable thing: it would mean that the Kingdom of God would return all the sooner and the world would come to an end. By continuing to propagate the human race we were simply holding up Christ’s glorious return.” Karen Armstrong, The Gospel According to Woman, p. 263
  9. Regeneration (theology) refers to spiritual rebirth. “Spiritually, it means that God brings Christians to new life or “born again” from a previous state of separation from God and subjection to the decay of death” [Wikipedia, Regeneration]
  10. On Marriage and Concupiscence, by Saint Augustine of Hippo [link]
  11. An interpretation on God’s willingness to listen to man’s prayers to have children builds on our Divine core in God’s image and on our freedom to call upon attributes similar to His. That includes the human ability to ‘bring’ (mediate, actually) new life (initially permitted or not), manifesting in the fallen us through His granting souls to the woman’s womb. Whatever the 1st-half-of-the-truth was in its entirety, in our fall we’ve maintained, activated or provoked this attribute in the virtue of the aforementioned pledge of free-will made to our Divine core; thus, either continuing to make use of procreation or only starting to do so—in spite of our slipping into death and limitations. For God’s patience and impartiality are infinite; but His love, mercy and forgiveness equally so, which reason why (in the light of present interpretation) He offers salvation to the souls we force into the corrupted world (we drag souls to suffering, God offers them salvation, up to their guarding the commandments and repenting of their sins—a sorrowful man-generated cycle we are told in the Bible that only He can fix at the end of time).
  12. A list of the most violent books in the Bible: https://listverse.com/2010/10/15/top-10-fieriest-books-in-the-bible (except for the not-yet-occurred vision in the book of Revelations, all the other books belong to the Old Testament).
    1. John J. Collins, Does the Bible Justify Violence? [link]
  13. All the descendants of Adam and Eve have an inclination to sin from an early age, because, since the fall, man’s offspring have been born in man’s fallen image. “Every member of the human race from the birth of Cain onwards would be born dead in their trespasses and sins – having a knowledge of good.. but without the power to carry it out, and having a knowledge of evil – but without the power to avoid it.” [https://dailyverse.knowing-jesus.com/genesis-4-1] To our relief, beneath the image of man there’s the initial image of God (at our core; the souls that emerge as our children through sexual conception are souls from God, that we call upon to come and live in new fallen flesh from our fallen flesh), and that will never be lost. Regardless of our poor judgment, praise the Lord, God recognizes us as His children. His souls. Because, as George MacDonald said, “You don’t have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.”
  14. “They shall say, ” is from the Greek verb that means “to say” and “to speak” also. It is in the future tense. https://christswords.com/main/content/luke-2329-behold-days-are-coming-which-they-shall-say-blessed-are-barren Meaning, there is no emphasis on who will say it, but that it will be said.
  15. Some may take Jesus’s reminder to the Pharisees of Genesis 2:24, “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.’‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” [Mark 10:6-9] as a hint toward marriage and procreation. That passage is actually about divorce. Not only does it serve as a sermon on divorce and adultery in marriage [see full episode, Mark 10:1-12 / Matthew 19:1-12], but in Matthew it ends with Jesus’s teaching that celibacy is the higher spiritual choice [Matthew 19:1-12]. That’s because Jesus brings light over the old, and relates to what people have gotten to hear or read upon His arrival, without necessarily verifying that what was written is truth. This can be noticed best in the Sermon on the Mount [Matthew 5-7]. Then, Genesis 2:24 (which we get to learn later, in Paul, that it holds a “profound mystery” for it refers to “Christ and the church” [Ephesians 5:31-32]) helped making the Pharisees understand that whenever one chooses marriage, one should not betray the expectations of the other. Moses himself (the traditionally credited author of Genesis) most probably inserted the “Therefore” aside in the Creation text to stress this moral to the people (especially to men); that the union entrusted to one another under God’s righteous witnessing eyes is not to be backed away. God takes account of such mutual commitment, thus Jesus adding next, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery[Mark 10:10-12] (further letting us know that He meant to cite Genesis 2:24 in light of adultery).
    1. On another note, if the moral goes both ways, why did Jesus highlight men’s “hardness of heart”? (“They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.”And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.[Mark 10:4-5]) Several reasons: women were many times subjugated and disposed of by men as men pleased (and God justly favors the powerless and aggrieved); then, at that time (and for a long time in history) wives were socially and economically dependent on their husbands, thus divorce made it difficult for them to provide for themselves; also, men’s frequent abandonment of their wives extended to further innocent souls (children), or caused the children’s painful separation from their mothers.
    2. On the divorce subject, it may be worth making a digression to observe that the weight of the sin ultimately lies in the event of an ulterior adultery, not in divorce itself. Divorce itself, though damaging and painful, doesn’t seem to carry the sinful effects of a following sexual relation or marriage with another. Then, we must simultaneously refer to Mark 10:1-12, Matthew 19:1-12, Matthew 5:31-32, Luke 16:18 and 1 Corinthians 7:10-15 in order to assess the dimensions of this sin.

      Special mention for Matthew 5:31-32 (“31: It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32: But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. [Matthew 5:31-32, ESV]): over the centuries, translators encountered difficulties with making Matthew 5:32 sound right, both literally and logically; even the original Greek version indicates a difficulty with expressing the essence of Jesus’s words, most probably spoken in the Aramaic language. In short, a better meaning of the original would be: “But I can guarantee that any man who divorces his wife for any reason other than unfaithfulness makes her look as though she has committed adultery. Whoever marries a woman divorced in this way makes himself look as though he has committed adultery[Matthew 5:32, GW, emphasis added] (alternatively, “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery[Matthew 5:32, NIV, emphasis added]) [ref 1] [ref 2] [ref 3]. The emphasis of His words (a warning in the context of His speech on lust and/leading to divorce, Matthew 5:27-32) was that men divorcing their innocent wives (due to their lusting for another woman), make their divorced wives victims of their (of the men’s) adultery. As for the second part, it can be either interpreted as: consequently, should the divorced women marry again, their new husbands would look adulterous too; or, most probably (for it’s still about a man, who now gets to marry—most likely the same man who has just divorced) as: when lustful men are waiting in the wings to marry a woman who has been divorced from her husband (“a woman who has pushed her husband for a divorce to marry this other man” [ref 2]), those men commit adultery as well.

      Special mention for Luke 16:18 (“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. [Luke 16:18]): similar to Matthew 5:32, “Jesus is not making a ‘blanket statement’ about divorce” [ref 4], but its proper sense resides in the social context. It must be again about divorcing to marry another. “In this context, Jesus is speaking of the teaching and behavior of the Pharisees, and the resulting ‘merry-go-round’ of divorce and remarriage in that cultural context. The easy, quick, and repeated marriage and divorce in some cultural circles was no different than having one affair after another or ‘wife swapping.’” [ref 4] Then, in 1 Corinthians 7:15 (“But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.[1 Corinthians 7:15, NIV]), “Paul clearly did not feel he was contradicting Jesus’ teaching on divorce, but was in agreement with it” [ref 2] (allowing remarriage in other cases, that is)

      The two clear, beyond any literal, contextual or logical doubt precepts resulting from the few Biblical statements of Christ in regards to the sin associated with divorce are that the innocently divorced due to the “marital unfaithfulness” of the other doesn’t commit adultery when choosing to later remarry another; and that the husband or wife who divorces (initiates or provokes divorce) the other so that he/she can marry (or have sex with) someone else whom they already like better (or have in mind), commits adultery. Then, it might also result that the initiator of the divorce (for other reasons than “marital unfaithfulness”) commits adultery even though they later marry (or have sex with) another for whom they had no initial romantic/erotic intentions at the time of the divorce. However, other divorcing reasons are not further weighed, like when one of the spouses refuses to perform their marital duties, or turns violent etc.—which particular cases leave open the question whether the wronged party is free to remarry, but are quite obvious in regards to the wrongful party in that that he/she cannot remarry another without falling under the possible adultery situation above. Also, we are not told of mutually agreed divorce due to serious compatibility deterioration (major dissensions/disagreements, unceasing quarrels, etc.) and later separate remarriage of any of the two or both, should none of the spouses have the intention to remarry a particular other at the time of divorce—does that fall under the sin of adultery too? For these kind of unclear reasons, the general consensus is that reconciliation should be sought first, then, should divorce be unavoidable, it is best to refrain from remarriage or further sexual relations with another (so as not to risk sinning).

  16. The “passionate desire of Israelite women for offspring” was well known in those times (Ellicott’s Commentary, https://biblehub.com/luke/23-29.htm); as well as the passionate desire of men for offspring, as we can learn from various parts of the Bible (to carry on names and traditions, to keep lands etc.)
  17. He that heareth the word, and under-standeth it.–The process is not merely an intellectual one. He takes it in, discerns its meaning. The phrases in the other Gospels express the same thing, “hear the word and receive it” (Mark), “in an honest and good heart” hear and retain it (Luke) [in order to achieve change of character—a change in good, that is]. Even here, however, there are different degrees of the holiness which is symbolised by “bearing fruit”–“some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty”–varying according to men’s capacities and opportunities.” [https://biblehub.com/matthew/13-23.htm]
  18. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”[Luke 18:17]. Jesus speaks about the requirement of us changing our hearts, in order to be capable of receiving the kingdom of God. And to do so, we need to (re)gain humbleness and admit our helplessness (as opposed to haughtiness and worldly self-sufficiency), just like a small child shows humbleness and helplessness to his/her parents (small child: Greek παιδίον, paidon—“generally, this word refers to those up to about seven or eight years old. So the sense is young children. This is the age where children were considered entirely dependent” https://christswords.com/main/content/child-children-and-little-ones )
  19. Paul had many times referred to not being married as the preferred choice. 1 Corinthians 7: “Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.”, “Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”, “Now concerning the betrothed [Greek virgins], I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is.Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife.But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.”, “I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.”, “If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better.Romans 7: “Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.”, “For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.”, “For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being,but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.Ephesians 5:31-32: even when citing the union between man and woman in Genesis, one of the verses attributed to Paul sees it not as a carnal union: ““Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.
  20. Tradition attributes thirteen of the New Testament books (written as epistles to fellow believers) to Paul [Wikipedia, Paul the Apostle]. However, the authorship is disputed for some of these letters [ref 1][ref2][ref3][ref4], including the Pastoral epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus). Regarding the letters to Timothy, “The majority of scholars doubt Paul’s authorship of the letters but vigorously dispute to what degree they reflect Pauline ministry[Britannica, Letters of Paul to Timothy]; “Nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholarship questioned the authenticity of the letter, with many scholars suggesting that First Timothy, along with Second Timothy and Titus, are not the work of Paul, but rather are unattributable Christian writing some time in the late-first-to-mid-2nd centuries. Most scholars now affirm this view.[Wikipedia, First Epistle to Timothy]. One of the several problems with the letters to Timothy are the “gender roles depicted in the letters, which proscribe roles for women that appear to deviate from Paul’s more egalitarian teaching that in Christ there is neither male nor female. Separate male and female roles, however, were not foreign to the authentic Pauline epistles; the First Letter to the Corinthians (14:34–35) commands silence from women during church services, stating that “it is a shame for women to speak in the church”. Father Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, O.P., in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, “agrees with many other commentators on this passage over the last hundred years in recognising it to be an interpolation by a later editor of 1 Corinthians of a passage from 1 Timothy 2:11–15 that states a similar ‘women should be silent in churches'”. This made 1 Corinthians more widely acceptable to church leaders in later times. If verses before or after 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 are read, it is fairly clear that verses 34 and 35 seem out of place.[Wikipedia, Pastoral epistles]
  21. Paul taught the early Christians that justification is by faith, and not by works. “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.[Romans 5:1-2]. Paul also states that Abraham and David were justified by faith and not by works: “What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.[Romans 4:1-8] ; “So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.[Galatians 3:6-9]. Regarding the sufficiency of faith alone, there is debate over the views of Paul and James (James view is that circumstantial good deeds are still necessary—which must be true, because if we can help a vulnerable other but choose not to do so, then we might turn into partakers to a suffering we could alleviate); more about that: https://www.str.org/w/faith-and-works-paul-vs-james , https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/do-paul-james-disagree-on-justification-by-faith-alone/
  22. “While the Bible doesn’t describe in detail the glorified bodies we will receive in heaven, we know that they will be like that of Jesus’ resurrected body […] The bodies we inherit will be more like what God had originally made us to be, rather than what we now abide in through the infirmity and weakness of our sinful flesh. We will be glorified with Christ, and that glory will extend to the bodies we will inhabit.” [https://www.gotquestions.org/glorified-bodies.html]
  23. “Jesus did not appeal to men on the basis of their fleshly lusts. Rather, He called upon men to deny fleshly lusts to follow Him [extra reference: “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it.” Mark 8:34-35 ]. Rather than appeal to man’s greed and materialism, Jesus called on those who would follow Him to give up their attachment to things (Matthew 6:19-24; Mark 10:21; Luke 9:57-62; 16:1-31). When the disciples sought power and prestige for themselves, Jesus spoke to them about servanthood (Mark 9:33-35; 10:35-45). Jesus spoke of those who obeyed His Father’s will as His family (Mark 3:31-35), and He taught His disciples that family must not come before their allegiance to Him (Luke 9:57-62; 14:25-33; see also Mark 10:29-30). One should rather be deprived of a member of his body than to sin against God (Matthew 5:27-30 : In the context, this teaching in Matthew is related to the sin of adultery. Jesus seems to be teaching that a disciple should not be dominated by illicit sexual desires but, if need be, drastic measures must be taken to ensure purity (see also Matthew 19:1-12))” [ https://bible.org/seriespage/10-true-spirituality-1-peter-211-12-or-getting-down-earth-about-our-hope-heaven ]
  24. Original justice: the state of Adam and Eve before they sinned. It was the simultaneous possession of sanctifying grace, with its right to enter heaven, and the preternatural gifts. [https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35321] The entire creation in its right and unharmful state when held in God’s hands directly.
  25. According to Matthew 19 (“The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”[Matthew 19:10-12] ), there are people who marry and people who do not marry, with the deeper knowledge that “it is better not to marry”. Not because that would be a secret knowledge, but because it’s not easy to discern when people are not ready to receive it. Similarly to Matthew 13 (“Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?”And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven [“those glorious Gospel truths which at that time only the more advanced disciples could appreciate, and they but partially[…]but fully published under the Gospel” https://biblehub.com/commentaries/jfb/matthew/13.htm ], but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away [proverbial; “in virtue of which moral principles become stronger by exercise, while by disuse, or the exercise of their contraries, they wax weaker, and at length expire” https://biblehub.com/commentaries/jfb/matthew/13.htm ]. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.[Matthew 13:10-13]), ‘to be given’ is not necessarily a matter of Divine gift, but of listening and recognizing the truth. Those who receive the gospel, later called Christians, in our endeavor to be like His apostles (and like Him) as much as we can are in a position to recognize more truths, to “see”, “hear” and “understand”. That’s why Jesus further indicates, “Let the one who is able to receive this receive it”, for it is desirable that everyone would become able to receive such knowledge. Not as an obligation not to marry, but that “it is better not to marry” is truth. The NIRV Bible version even makes the reading adaptation, “Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept the idea of staying single. Only those who have been helped to live without getting married can accept it.[Matthew 19:10-12, NIRV] (in Separation, the lack of the preternatural gifts [54] of infused knowledge and absence of concupiscence can somewhat be compensated through learning and preparing in constant awareness toward spiritual values, also through efforts to control our sinful will.) In the same light, of celibacy as the preferred choice which is not necessarily a gift, nor secret, but up to each one’s ability to accept it (therefore in no way an obligation either), Paul will provide more explanations later in the Bible [35].
  26. Early Church Fathers [Wikipedia, Church Fathers] had clear negative views toward sexual intercourse. They taught that sexual ardor of the flesh is incompatible with the sanctity of the spirit, for it comes out of lust and passion which separate the carnal from our higher bond with God. They also stated that the original sin (“a state of sin in which humanity has existed since the fall of man” [Wikipedia, Original sin]) is transmitted to all of Adam’s descendants through sexual procreation (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage, Augustine etc.). Augustine even equated the original sin with concupiscence (“hurtful desire”), which made him in his youth feel trapped by sexual desire: “I was bound down by this disease of the flesh[…]a chain that I dragged along with me” [The Confessions, by Saint Augustine], which reminds us of Paul’s biblical verse, “For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing[Romans 7:19]. But Augustine denied that intercourse itself brought about the fall (in his view, it is the carnal concupiscence that brings shame and disgrace upon intercourse, which carnal concupiscence is the “daughter of [the original] sin”; and “whenever it yields assent to the commission of shameful deeds, it becomes also the mother of many sins” [The Anti-Pelagian Writings, by Saint Augustine]), the same as other Church Fathers believed that, according to a literal reading of the Bible, the first duty for man was to “multiply and be fruitful” starting within the Garden of Eden (yet struggling, just like other scholars of the present and the past, to find a good explanation as to why that didn’t happen in Eden, unable to avoid the fact that sexual continence was obviously the preferred state). Which multiplying duty, they said, has come to an end and there is no need to give in to sexuality not even for procreation reasons anymore, though they had some differences as in why that is: “[…]where Tertullian and Jerome argued that the world was becoming over-populated, Augustine argued that the number of citizens who would be in God’s city was fixed, and that sexual procreation was no longer needful because there was now a better way to reach this number.” [Marriage in the Western Church: The Christianization of Marriage During the Patristic and Early Medieval Periods, by Philip Lyndon Reynolds] To Augustine, “The City of God is marked by people who forego earthly pleasure to dedicate themselves to the eternal truths of God, now revealed fully in the Christian faith. The Earthly City, on the other hand, consists of people who have immersed themselves in the cares and pleasures of the present, passing world” [Wikipedia, The City of God]. Although it is not clear where does the fixed number of citizens to enter the city of God view originates from, and what are its supporting references, but admitting that we do not know what the predetermined number of the elect is, Augustine further explains what he sees as “the better way” to reach for the final number (and the end of the world) in De Bono Coniugali And De Sancta Virginitate [ link]: “But I know what people are murmuring: ‘Suppose’, they remark, ‘that everyone sought to abstain from all intercourse? How would the human race survive?’ I only wish that this was everyone’s concern [or, “Would that all did wish to do this [i.e. abstain from all intercourse]” in the CSEL translation version] so long as it was uttered in charity ‘from a pure heart, a good conscience, and faith unfeigned’ [1 Timothy 1:5]; then the city of God would be filled much more speedily, and the end of the world would be hastened.”
  27. Salvation can be seen as the reverse path from wicked to innocence, from corrupted to what God meant for His Creation. Why do we want (and need) to be saved? Because we are fallen. We are sinners. We discover ourselves separated from the Truth. Naked. Hungry. Unjust. Dying. Salvation is possible because God wishes it for us, because He opened this door to us so we can step back into His heavenly kingdom if we choose to. “On the part of God, salvation is by grace; on the part of man, it is through faith.” [https://biblehub.com/commentaries/pulpit/ephesians/2.htm], “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God[Ephesians 2:8]
    • Personal salvation: individual salvation after physical death. The cornerstone to that is repentance, staying out of (more) sins and living in compassion toward all others, while discovering God in everything there is and praying for our souls. Holding onto innocence and understanding to reject the worldly self in accepting the highest authority are key: “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven[Matthew 18:3]
    • Collective salvation: an extension to personal salvation. As in compassionately helping others seek and attain their respective afterlife salvation, be it directly (teaching, missionary work etc.) or indirectly (helping in poverty, in war, in disease etc.), with and in the name of merciful God; thus inspiring faith. Collective salvation implies multiple linked personal salvations (each personal salvation plays a role in the multitude of salvations), however small or large the group or community.
      • When referring to the salvation of the soul, the fact that collective salvation may come in second after personal salvation in one’s priorities should not be regarded as selfishness. In fact, the two go hand-in-hand. There are many kinds of distress that can readily receive the altruism and self-sacrificial behavior of the helping party (fire rescue, accident rescue, freeing another at the cost of own freedom or life etc.) without requiring much suitability in doing so, but serving another in hope of also providing help to one’s soul usually calls for one’s own determination that it’s the true path (and for one’s own longing to take that path). Inspiring faith usually requires faith. It is difficult to teach others the necessity of loving God and that all the wrongs in this world are our doing and not His doing, when one doesn’t fully understand that necessity or doesn’t believe that himself. Then, being true to the self results in being true to others; “Love your neighbor as yourself[Mark 12:31] subtly implies this (beyond the interdiction to harm others): that both one’s own and another’s salvation rely on each one’s spiritual rebirth [John 3:3] and straightening of the heart. All that, while not forgetting that each soul on its own is more valuable to God than all the riches of the world [Matthew 16:26] [Luke 9:25] (unselfishness doesn’t mean at all to ignore or let own soul deteriorate in sin).
    • Inherited salvation: this kind of salvation isn’t about after-life salvation, but about the before-life, implicit state of salvation (i.e. unspoiled perfection). Improperly called salvation, it simply means not putting inexistent others in a position to actually require salvation; sparing potential offspring from the need of salvation, that is. The paradoxical “inherited” designation indicates that any child we didn’t conceive, as well as its potential descendants, have ‘inherited’ this no-need-of-salvation.
      • This is one of the kinds of salvation that we already know that God, in His infinite mercy and righteousness, will establish upon mankind at the end of age. His eternal kingdom and ever-lasting salvation will mean, among other things, that the time when souls could be dragged into the fallen world will come to an end (to our eye-opening now, Jesus tells us that self-procreation is not an option even when the fall is cured [62]; that being the case, we definitely aren’t meant to play the role of intermediate-creators in our fallen state). Inherited, ever-lasting salvation then means that no one will ever have to die or to be saved again (for Creation will be back with God in all respects). The question is: could we get anywhere close to the global, inherited, ever-lasting salvation on our own? (as in unanimously ceasing to perpetuate the fall, thus handing our inferior, tainted life-bringing ability to God by ourselves) Most probably not. But in the utopian, minimum probability that the inherited salvation would willingly become the goal of every single man in the world at the same generation-time, the second coming of Christ with the establishment of the kingdom of God would most probably be hastened.
  28. St. Maximus the Confessor said, “In the beginning, sin enticed Adam and persuaded him to transgress the Divine commandment, and through transgression sin gave subsistence to pleasure, and through pleasure sin affixed itself to the very foundations of our nature, condemning the whole of our nature to death, and through the human person it was pushing the nature of all created beings away from existence.” [On Difficulties in Sacred Scripture: The Responses to Thalassios, by Saint Maximus the Confessor, p.439]
    1. For our forefather Adam, having transgressed the Divine commandment, introduced into our nature another beginning of birth—in contrast to the one that had preceded it—constituted by pleasure, yielding to pain, and ending in death.[On Difficulties in Sacred Scripture: The Responses to Thalassios, by Saint Maximus the Confessor, p.437]
  29. In a simplistic mystical view, man can be seen as carrying out his existence between the realm of the heavens (Divine, high on any scale) and the realm of the earth (worldly, low on any scale). Obviously, we were created in (a mirror or extension of) and for the realm of the heavens, while earth is what it is today (low on any scale) just because we caused its separation from the heavens through our sin. Our attachment to earth is maintained through our selfish desires and ignorance at heavenly truths. Among the selfish desires, sexual intercourse is the strongest and our most dear connection with the flesh (which is pure earth). It’s through this earthly connection that we repeatedly confirm and prolong the separation (the path of the fall), for sexual pleasure gives the empty sense of gratification of living in flesh and bones. Sexual intercourse brings false inner peace and hope to our earthly journey, which lasts only a short period until we become restless again. Restless, because our souls know better, and even unknowingly to us they seek to break away from the low earth and elevate toward the high heavens (“Since you are God’s children, God sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, and the Spirit cries out, “Father.”” [Galatians 4:6]), all the while the flesh is losing its satisfaction and sense of earthly belonging. We many times experience depression and apathy because of this conflict (we feel lost between the magnet of the heavens and the magnet of the earth—especially when lacking proper, enlightening teachings throughout our life, starting in childhood). And also many times we find the easy response to that in gratifying the earthly connection again, through yet more sexual intercourse (our hormones and stimuli of the flesh kick back and win, dragging the soul back toward the ground—being born and living at the flesh’s end of the ladder between the heavens and the earth, i.e. close to the earth magnet, calls for some spiritual effort if we want to manage to elevate [and the power of fleshly stimuli (temptation) is no-joke; self-keeping-away from visual, auditory and sensorial stimuli is a true-necessity, at least until climbing higher, to stronger spiritual levels]; and the closer we get to the upper part of this ladder, the clearer and easier it becomes, more we open our eyes; for God loves us and forever keeps this ladder steady for us, so that we can climb back if we wish to, the same as it was our wish to fall in the first place—for both magnetic poles [being with God or without God] were equally accessible to the free-will made man from the beginning).
    1. Another way to depict our situation would be to say that, before the fall, we were living in God and with God, with both our free minds and our free hearts (mind is understanding, the rational; heart is feeling and desire; not to be taken for an analogy between men and women, between more rational or more emotional, but for the split of perception manifesting in all people). Our minds and our hearts were looking up, in perfect togetherness. The fall meant that especially the heart has strayed from God after running into lower feelings and desires. Now, when the mind (partaker to the fall in its deceptive sense of self-sufficiency, misjudgment etc.) realizes the mistake and the need to look up toward God again, the mind’s next task is to lead the heart to the same understanding. In Separation, the heart’s understanding is faith, to believe. When the heart is convinced and believes, when the heart looks up with strength again, the heart moves away from sex and earthly desires. Yet, it will remain the mind’s work to protect the Separation-weakened heart from temptation, and to provide guidance in spiritual terms whenever it may yield again to lower feelings (which is the case in any comparable situation: when the heart feels proud, the mind would tell it to stay humble; when the heart feels angry, the mind would remind it about compassion, patience and forgiveness; etc.)
    2. Then, in more Biblical terms, climbing the full length of the ladder (or to the maximum approach humans can make toward God; not that salvation cannot be achieved at lesser lengths, but in seeking the most worthy possible completion/perfection to human existence) seems possible only with strong faith and a constant pursuit of righteousness, which implies complete sexual abstinence (spiritually self-made eunuch, see Matthew 19:12). The risk in trying that, is forcing oneself to be “able to receive that” but actually staying captive in ardent desire, unable to elevate any further, or even going far lower than when sexually active, due to unexpected responses (outbursts, perversions etc.). First, the mind may not yet be certain, nor yet solid in understanding the higher choice of celibacy. Second, the mind’s prayer may not be reaching the heart; it fails to be convincing to the heart. Not convincing the heart (as in: immune to sexual temptation) is not, however, an impediment to celibacy, when the first condition is met (a clear mind, committed to avoiding and disregarding temptation); the heart then may or may not start believing the teaching received through the mind (and even when believing, it may still never reach immunity to sexual temptation; for that’s very hard in our fleshly members [“I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my membersRomans 7:22-24 ], and it may come and go; involuntary fleshly events, usually during the night, are also part of this captivity “to the law of sin that dwells in my members”), yet guided by the praying mind would accept and co-join in celibacy; but when the first condition is not met (a certain, trusting, committed mind), celibacy is not yet acknowledged as the higher choice. That’s when, Paul explains, one should consider marriage. For in marriage, one gets lower in carnal union but then elevates too, and even higher than (s)he could go in tormenting, unsettled celibacy; one elevates by following the teachings of Christ and Paul on favoring the spiritual life and practicing moderation. Which holds personal salvation fully attainable. The obvious downside to this is the contribution to propagating the deadly state of fall to new others (through reproductive capabilities).
  30. “Lusts are those appetites or desires we have by virtue of our fallen human nature. They are not sinful acts, but the desire to perform acts which are for self-gratification rather than for the glory of God. Carried out, these “lusts” result in sin (see 1 Peter 4:3). The “lusts” of which Peter speaks [including 1 Peter 2:11] are “former lusts,” those which characterized his readers as unbelievers in a state of ignorance. They are also “lusts” which have an on-going appeal. When submitted to, these lusts shape (conform) us to them (1 Peter 1:14). How should we then deal with fleshly lusts? We are not left without help. Peter gives a very concise word of advice on how we should deal with fleshly lusts—we are to avoid them. Other texts of Scripture shed light on how we avoid them: “But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to [its] lusts” (Romans 13:14). “But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh” (Galatians 5:16).” [https://bible.org/seriespage/10-true-spirituality-1-peter-211-12-or-getting-down-earth-about-our-hope-heaven]
    1. In terms of physiological traits, men tend to feel lust more intensely toward women, and to manifest a dominant, even combative unrest around the “fairer sex”. In many cultures, men have accused women of their (the men’s) inability to refrain from sexual thoughts and impulses, especially when in religious gatherings or under pious requirements; the blame has been attributed to the women’s (sometimes called “evil”) attractiveness, with their bodily charms and femininity. Whereas, the real culprit is the “eye” (own hormones and perception) of the lusty, be it man or woman; desire doesn’t live in the physical “geometry” of the other, but in the eye of the reacting. Of course, when the other makes use of sensuality to incite, the blame is shared. But the true work not to be tempted lies with the self, in acknowledging the inner weakness and ultimately the flaw we need to stand against; thus choosing to resort to decency, avoidance of stimuli and walking away from temptation while turning to spiritual expansion (praying, putting on “the Lord Jesus Christ, and making no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts[Romans 13:14]). Then, bearing in mind the image of sexually propagating the fall with its many sufferings and death helps a great deal to step out of temptation.
  31. “By remaining celibate and devoting themselves to the service of the Church, priests more closely model, configure themselves to, and consecrate themselves to Christ. As Christ himself makes clear, none of us will be married in heaven (Mt 22:23–30). By remaining unmarried in this life, priests are more closely configured to the final, eschatological state that will be all of ours. Paul makes it very clear that remaining single allows one’s attention to be undivided in serving the Lord (1 Cor 7:32–35). He recommends celibacy to all (1 Cor 7:7) but especially to ministers, who as soldiers of Christ he urges to abstain from “civilian affairs” (2 Tm 2:3–4). Canonically, priests cannot marry for a number of reasons. First, priests who belong to religious orders take vows of celibacy. Second, while diocesan priests do not take vows, they do make a promise of celibacy. Third, the Church has established impediments that block the validity of marriages attempted by those who have been ordained. Canon 1087 states: “Persons who are in holy orders invalidly attempt marriage.”” [https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-cant-a-priest-ever-marry]
  32. The obsessive desire of another (romantic love) is also an expression of lust (desiring the whole of another, physical attraction included; wanting to place our carnal fervors in the hands of the loved one, under the feeling they can attend them to our pleasure) and of the Separation from God (lack of ability to connect with others at spiritual level in God’s unity, involuntarily seeking to compensate our cognitive and emotional shortcomings—the overpowering impression that another may hold whatever we feel to be missing or haven’t learned or realized yet). It was due to the Separation from God that our minds lost the original infused knowledge and absence of concupiscence gifts [54], which gifts initially helped us relate and connect to each-others from inside-out. Infused knowledge would be (among other things) the wisdom to connect with and relate to all others like true brothers and sisters, grown under the same roof, knowing each-others’ hearts and minds, not bothering to consider or address each-others’ surface. The absence of concupiscence would be the lack of erotic senses and of interest in carnal disparities; or, perhaps that was a complete absence of male-female differentiation (“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus[Galatians 3:28]), because Jesus is reunification in and with God, as we once were, in the way things were initially supposed to be. Losing those gifts, in Separation, we relate and connect with (lesser-known) others starting with the outside. Especially when young. For the young suffer most from the lack of infused knowledge—the spiritually unprepared, yet to acquire wisdom, are more susceptible to romantic love. This is why with age, or after a time living with the romantic-loved person, or in praying in solitude or in non-tempting (and non-tempted) true-caring company (for temptation in Separation is no-joke; while false [manipulative, interested, malicious, deviant etc.] wisdom is dangerous, especially to the young), romantic compulsion diminishes until it vanishes or converts (for romantic love is a delusion in the fallen, a superficial appreciation later in life to be cognized for what love truly is: love for the core of the person, in respect and compassion, in appreciation of each-other’s gentleness, moral virtues, good deeds etc.)
  33. Reading the Bible gives rise to the question: Does one/first consensual sexual intercourse already mean marriage? There is no clear answer to that in the Bible; when referring to the social context, awareness and expectations during one period or another, some communities used to (while some may still) express and expect that sexual intercourse equals marriage. However, the overall Biblical theology (which worked over the centuries to bring marriage, a natural condition in the fallen, to more established and moral terms, highlighting the necessity of more spiritual living and less lustful living) agrees that a sort of specific (contractually or ceremonially solemnizing) commitment is required to create marriage. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh[Genesis 2:24] , which is a Genesis aside made from the point of view of the author’s knowledge about the fallen world and marriage, suggests that marriage includes two aspects: the carnal union (“hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh”), and an explicit recognition/covenant (“a man shall [explicitly, visibly, publicly] leave his father and his mother”). The explicit recognition expands a union based on physical connection and limited assumed emotional risks to higher emotional, intellectual, spiritual, social and economic trustworthiness and involvement. We are presented with the same idea in John 4:18, where Jesus Himself says, “for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband[John 4:16-18], referring (in regards to the woman’s current partner) to the fact that having a mere man-woman private carnal-based relationship (what we today call cohabitation) is not marriage, but immorality.
    1. Further considering the “one flesh” notion of intercourse, though not creating marriage in and on itself, it does activate a powerful bond in being the expression of the most intimate carnal manifestation. “Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her?[1 Corinthians 6:16] (the point we take for the present comment is not prostitution, but the fact that sexual relations create strong, easily overlooked bonds). That’s because sexual activity is a matter of living the fall, which is shared, lived and maintained when submitting (mostly) to the flesh. When offering our lustful flesh to another lustful flesh for shared gratification in the fall (in the lustful flesh), we’re actually co-signing with the other in confirming (committing to) the state of fall together (for there was no lust nor intercourse when man was innocent, before the fall). Not assuming this bond results in sexual immorality (fornication). Assuming this bond, assuming the union of the two bodies into living the fall together, results in sanctified marriage, which by God’s grace is a legitime path to salvation, for it extends the bond to also seeking salvation together (in a higher “one flesh” unity). (The seeking salvation together bond then extends again, over potential offspring resulting from the partners’ inability [“Let the one who is able to receive this receive itMatthew 19:12 ] to keep the fall each one to oneself.)
  34. Preternatural Gifts: “Favors granted by God above and beyond the powers or capacities of the nature that receives them but not beyond those of all created nature. Such gifts perfect nature but do not carry it beyond the limits of created nature. They include three great privileges to which human beings have no title–infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality. Adam and Eve possessed these gifts before the Fall.” [https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35763]
  35. “The Church very quickly produced its own liturgy of Eucharist, Baptism and Confirmation but nothing was done about marriage. It was not important for a couple to have their nuptial blessed by a priest. People could marry by mutual agreement in the presence of witnesses; they could have sex at once and there was no need to wait for the Church’s blessing. This system, known as Spousals, persisted after the Reformation and endured well into the 18th century. Very often the couple married in the church porch. Thus Chaucer’s Wife of Bath tells the Canterbury pilgrims that she had five husbands ‘at the Church door’. Augustine and Aquinas may have said that marriage was a sacrament, but no ceremonial was devised to celebrate this sacrament. At first the old Roman pagan rite was used by Christians. Clearly it had to be modified, but the modifications were purely superficial: the Holy Spirit and Christ were substituted for the names of pagan gods. Thus there was no special Christian marriage service for centuries. The first detailed account of Christian wedding in the West dates from the 9th century and it was identical to the old nuptial service of Ancient Rome. For all the insistence of the Scholastics that Christian marriage was something essentially different from marriage between pagans, this sacrament had to wait centuries before receiving Christian baptism. The wedding is now so firmly entrenched in our Western consciousness that it is difficult for us to realize how very new the wedding mythology really is.” [Karen Armstrong, The Gospel According to Woman, p. 263-264]
  36. “[…] Marrying for love instead of for economic and political calculation remained rare and socially disapproved until the late 18th century, when radicals such as America’s founding fathers insisted that people had a right to “the pursuit of happiness.” Almost immediately, youths began to defy their parents and marry or not marry as they wished. Individuals also began to demand the right to divorce rather than remain in an unhappy marriage, and rates of divorce which had been illegal in most Western societies in the early modern era rose steadily throughout the 19th century.” [Stephanie Coontz, https://www.stephaniecoontz.com/node/432]
  37. In early Syriac Christianity (in the Syrian Orient, using the Syriac alphabet—a derivation of the Aramaic alphabet), celibacy was a ubiquitous value. Though “celibacy was not necessarily a matter of refusing to participate in the imperfection of the physical world,” but more a matter of being utterly devoted to God, “the idea of celibacy was, for Syrian spirituality, more than an ideal; it was fundamental. Hence, in earliest Syrian Christianity, the word bthūlā, “virgin,” could also mean “Christian,” whether male or female, lay or religious. […] Emphasis on celibacy and service to the church, then, were widely found in Syriac Christianity before the growth of a separate ascetic movement. […] To engage in activities that furthered the existence of this earthly life only delayed the inevitable—and desired—arrival of the eschaton [the final event in the Divine plan]. Christ as Second Adam had opened the gates of Paradise anew for those who were saved and promised their return to that state of grace lived by the First Adam and Eve before the Fall. To hasten the fulfillment of this event, the believer lived in its expectation and sought in every way possible not to contribute to the continuing existence of this earthly realm, for example, by the procreation of children.” [Asceticism and Society in Crisis: John of Ephesus and The Lives of the Eastern Saints, by Susan Ashbrook Harvey] The early Syriac Christian Church only baptized celibates for the first few centuries (emphasizing that only those who can accept celibacy can be Jesus’ followers). The idea of celibacy and singleness was so highly regarded, sometimes leading the believer “to adopt a life of stark symbolism: living naked in the wilderness exposed to the elements, eating only raw fruit and herbs, dwelling among the wild beasts, and leading an unbroken life of prayer. These precursors of the monastic movement understood the Christian life in its absolute sense; the believer was saved and so no longer part of the fallen world. […] Early Syrian Christianity evoked extreme action through a spirituality that called for lived symbols. Such action pointed to one more characteristic intensifying the sense that Christianity without asceticism was incomplete (perhaps even unthinkable): that is, the idea of “singleness.” […] Thus from various sources Syriac spirituality nourished the conviction that to be a Christian was to be single-minded, and to be celibate, and to live a life of renunciation.” Several other early Christian movements present in the Syrian Orient at the time “shared an understanding that separated the spiritual and physical realms, and from various angles glorified celibacy”, though these groups proved to be heretical in their extended teachings or/and within their celibacy reasons: the Marcionites “sought to fulfill literally the apostolic injunction that in Christ there is neither male nor female” (with Marcion preaching that Christians should be celibate and should not marry, but also that God and creation are distinct (dualism)); the Manicheans and some Gnostics “understood matter to be evil and so encouraged dissociation from it; baptism was interpreted in some groups as betrothal to Christ, the Heavenly Bridegroom, and thus reduced earthly marriage to adultery”; to an even more extreme, the Encratites and Severian Encratites adopted radical views, forbidding marriage and bringing abusive interpretations to the religious texts.
  38. Jesus lets us know that there is no marriage in the Endzeit (at the end of time, in the ever after), for in resurrection humans turn asexual like angels (this is also yet another hint toward the fact that we were initially created to be asexual like angels, or to become like angels after practicing abstinence for a while, perhaps on a learning path to acknowledging, among other things, that we should not desire nor overtake the power of creation, thus willingly rejecting such capabilities [69.1]). Mark [see Mark 12:25] and Matthew [see Matthew 22:30] are clear about the de facto absence of marriage among angels, but Luke’s version might prove ambiguous when not referring to modern translations like the New Revised Standard Version. The difficulty is in translating the original Greek in Luke 20:36: “[the resurrected neither marry nor are given in marriage] for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection” (ESV version) versus “[the resurrected neither marry nor are given in marriage.] Indeed they cannot die anymore, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection” (NRSV version). The former (ESV) translation may read as in, “the reason the resurrected won’t need to marry is their immortality, which renders the need to multiply useless/meaningless.” The latter new revised translation reflects a better understanding of old Greek, with better cross-referencing the writing style of the books of the New Testament, removing the ambiguity (no connection between marriage/lack of marriage and mortality/immortality). Also, there are logical flaws (contradictions) with the hypothetical reading of early translations—that sounds as if the need/duty to multiply in humans stems from our being mortals; first, should such need/duty come from the Garden of Eden (before the fall, as literal Genesis seems to suggest), that makes no sense, for Adam and Eve were initially immortals; second, we know there’s no such duty (rejected by scholars as already shown before); third, such an interpretation equals the mere quality of being immortal with irreversible abstinence (as in keeping our lust at bay by simply not dying; which would be too similar to our condition before the fall, when lust turned out to be a possibility in bad choice; that possibility, just as the instrumental individual traits to support it (as in body parts), should in fact not exist in the final, irrevocable kingdom of God), OR it implies that angels themselves have sexual traits and are subject to lust but perfect at abstaining (same contradiction; the final, irrevocable kingdom of God cannot have ‘doors’ to slip away from it, nor reasons to test strength, virtue, faith, etc.)
    1. Luke’s phrasing, “those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage[Luke 20:35], can also create the impression of a direct revelation that those who avoid marriage in this age (now) are worthy of a place in that age (then). That’s not the case. The author certainly meant to point to the lack of marriage in the coming age, that those who will awaken will not marry nor be given in marriage. Mark and Matthew are clear about it: “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven[Mark 12:25], “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.[Matthew 22:30] (emphasis added)
  39. Conception is equivalent to the emerging of a new life. Being God’s miracle, thus a mystery, we cannot know how or when one’s soul is infused. That might be the case from the very beginning, or at a slightly later stage of the embryo’s development—with the first heart beat (week 5-6), with the first electrical brain activity (forty to forty-three days), with the first movement (week 11+), with the starting of the fetal period (week 11, distinct human characteristics) etc. The former case makes abortion a crime (full sin) at any moment, and the discussion ends here. The latter case seemingly leaves room for other possibilities. Sentience is also a factor, and it takes precedent over soul, meaning that, should the soul yet not be present (or present in an inferior state), the quality of feeling pain results in cruelty, at least. Regardless, “abortion willed either as an end or a means [intended abortion], is gravely contrary to the moral law” [Vatican’s CCC 2271], and even in the impossible-to-determine case where very early abortion is not a crime, that would still be highly immoral in playing with life; for it’s most probably a transgression against God’s laws and His presence in the early human, be it architectural, predeterminant or already complete in terms of both (pre)corporeal and non-corporeal attributes. A sin nevertheless. Then, a pertinent question arises: what about (God forbid) medical emergencies or consent-less abominations (sexual assault, etc.), do they reduce the sin of abortion? The answer cannot be other than this: only God can weigh that. Once more, we see how sin and tragedy become possible and can take many forms as a result of sexuality and self-reproduction in the fallen humanity.
  40. “Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.” [Vatican’s CCC 1996]
  41. We sometimes hear the belief that God expects us to multiply (and not doing so is regarded as a sin) in order to allow love to be manifested from Him to us and from us to Him. As though refusing to procreate is denying God’s right to love yet another human being and to be loved by that new human being. The confusion lies in isolating partial principles and relating to unsustainable old beliefs (e.g., the belief in a commandment for the fallen to multiply). In its entirety, the Bible actually guides us how to understand God’s love:
    • God surely created us out of pure love and to share true, spiritual love in Him. But when He did so, He created man in a true paradise; not dying, not knowing turmoil or despair—on the contrary, in His unhindered bosom and state of perfection. That’s what God wanted for us. That’s when God would bring man to life. Multiplying in the fallen, bringing others to a fallen life subjected to sufferings, wicked and death, is not what He intended, but our doing. Now, because His love is by grace, merciful, caring, unconditional love, which on the other hand must abide by His impartial justice, God grieves our current sorrowful situation and He wishes us out of it (through His offer of salvation, which is also by grace; “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life[John 3:16] ; the focus of His love is now on getting the worldly-born out of this fallen place He never meant us to carry out His gift of life into).
    • The first commandment is to love God back. That’s the law of true love; for spiritual love to work, to shed light and generate effects in all aspects, the circle must be closed in accepting it, appreciating it for what it is and mirroring it back like crystals under flood lights. Not because God needs us to motivate or magnify His sense of love and mercy; we are in no way the necessary catalysts for God’s love, God is absolute, unconditional love. But because love is the binding agent, the ‘blood’ of God’s doings—of His Creation. Without proper flow, it’s broken harmony: the non-loving side suffers from its own denial of true love, from its own obscureness in shadow. That’s the meaning of the “I am the Lord your God[Exodus 20:2] and “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind[Matthew 22:37] commandments, for God loves man (and there is no higher love than His), and He wants people to know where the truth is, to be able to find God back; to recognize and remember His way, which is spiritual love. That’s the only way back to Him from this worldly life. That’s why Jesus came, that’s why we need Him to come again with the final judgment—for God didn’t create us to suffer and die, the same as when the Kingdom of God returns man won’t die anymore but will become similar to angels (and there won’t be any more human procreation), “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.[Matthew 22:30]).
      • Then, if loving God back is realizing where the truth stands, such a Fatherly commandment responds at the same time to the need of the sinful to curb their sins. Because, when loving God, one understands and loves righteousness. When loving God, one seeks not only to be merciful and compassionate, but also to be just and honorable. For God is both true, unconditional love, and true, impartial justice. That’s the starting and ending point for all the other commandments and understandings. (Reason why, Jesus told us that loving our neighbor—who is equally a soul from God—, doing to them “whatever you wish that others would do to you” is the second most important commandment, right after loving God. If one is righteous in God, that comes natural—it derives from loving God; otherwise, or when hitting a bump in the road of faith, that must be obeyed as a commandment.)

    Christ’s beatitudes [Matthew 5:2-11] are clear that God’s highest consolations and rewards, though comforting to think about already in current sufferings, are not in this world, but in His Kingdom, for those who attain salvation from this tainted existence. Jesus then said: “let the children come to Me”, for their own salvation, and not “make children or you wrong God”. For God’s love and mercy cannot fully manifest in our drift from perfection (we obscure them with our pitiful own wills and fallen unsuitability); but He is constantly waiting to offer all His love and mercy after the just ending of a life overshadowed by sin (with physical death as consequence of corrupted birth [46.1]).

  42. The reader has understood by now that acknowledging the truth of perpetuating the fallen state by procreating in our fallen image has everything to do with sexuality. Sin, sufferings and death have everything to do with sexuality. Sexuality is the root burden. While some may find contraception or self-gratification as an acceptable answer to avoiding bringing more innocent children to live our flaws, weighing such practices on a good-or-bad scale is not the subject here (the Bible is not clear on the matter, all we have is the story of Onan in Genesis 38; allegorical or not, this text only relates to the sin of not obeying the ancient levirate law in the interest of Onan’s own heritage, probably also of lying and exploiting the situation to his selfish carnal pleasures at the expense of others). What needs be stressed, however, is that Jesus meant abstinence. Both by model and teaching, where eunuch is abstinence (“eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven[Matthew 19:12]), by power of the spirit and force of a righteous mind. Which is only normal, for, though the consequences in contraception remain limited to the spiritual back-down of the involved man and woman (due to unworthy concupiscence), the engine of the vehicle perpetuating the fall stays in charge. The lesson is not fully learned. The fall is not deeply acknowledged, to its painful magnitude. But, again, the struggle is so hard and feels so uneven, that when sexual desire is winning, we’d better submit to this condition in the fallen (“it is better to marry than to burn with passion[1 Corinthians 7:8-9])
  43. Abstinence is an exclusive matter of personal choice only when not already married. If already married, whenever abstinence goes against the expectations of the husband or wife, things may get difficult. Though limited in this case, the Bible (Paul) tells us that abstinence must be subject to mutual consent, in order not to fall or push the other into adultery or sexual immorality [1 Corinthians 7:3-5]. In this reading, whenever one’s spouse disagrees with one’s choice of abstinence, one needs to either insist on getting their consent (in reasoning and gentleness), or to fulfill his/her marital duty. With divorce being regarded as potentially leading to adultery too (though we do not get instructions on this kind of divorce reasons) [29.2], also not forgetting that children bear the burden of our choices (starting with their mortal, limited earthly existence, continuing with collecting their wounds coming out from the parents’ hostility, hard separation and so on), we see how crucial it is to give sexuality and marriage a thoughtful and thorough reflection before walking their way.
  44. (1st half of the truth) The whole truth about our existence starts with the way we came to be. But whatever lays at our beginnings remains unknown to us, impossible to establish or reconstruct. No matter how grand the scientific (logical) assumptions we can make, no matter how deeply we may interpret the religious books, the exact process or the full motivations and steps of our coming into existence, as well as of our having turned away from the good path and proceeding down a bad road are not accessible to the separated within us. Thus keeping the first half of the truth (defining the period until after the fall) in mystery. Yet, we understand enough (and can always rework our minds and souls up to this understanding, even after reaching the darkest bottom) to make the most of our lives, to turn our face to God and yearn His consolation and salvation: that God is, and that He knows better. And that’s the essence of the 1st half of the (concealed/lost) truth. Understanding this, that His will and not ours brings all the good things, also leads to the reasoning of the 2nd half of the truth. For our own will is weak with misleading desire, “Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.[James 1:15]. “Every member of the human race from the birth of Cain onwards would be born dead in their trespasses and sins – having a knowledge of good.. but without the power to carry it out, and having a knowledge of evil – but without the power to avoid it.” [https://dailyverse.knowing-jesus.com/genesis-4-1]. For the power to properly carry out good and avoid evil, that’s always been God’s power, not ours alone.
    1. Given the “formula”: carnal concupiscence (consequent flaw of the fall) + transmitting the state of fall (procreating in man’s fallen image) = vicious cycle of mortality and inclination to sin:
      • one theory would be that the fall could have been related to the desire to imitate God’s power to create life (among, perhaps, other powers/knowledge). Man being created similarly to angels (from the beginning) supports this theory best.
      • another theory would be that man slowly moved away from obeying God, until falling into eroticism (which man could not experience when fully trusting and obeying God’s word, for the spirit was stronger than the flesh). Man being created to learn, so that later he would become like angels (until man alone would exclude the possibility of self-procreation, submitting to God’s total wisdom) fits this theory best.

      In both these cases, Adam and Eve (or the first humans) reached for (or crossed the interdiction on) the one prerogative that man, made in God’s image and not equal to God, could under no circumstances perform properly completely on their own (bringing life into existence, that is). Which privilege, though theoretically possible in our inferior-to-God love-driven likeness and freedom, must have initially been interdicted rightfully so; for man’s lack of Divine omniety (anything less than absoluteness) would break the original justice (with all its qualities requiring God’s continuous direct manifestation) and produce flawed attributes; furthermore, such flawed attributes would lose their compatibility with perfection (with the perfect creation ‘environmental’ characteristics), thus drifting into a lower realm. There (in the lower realm called earthly existence), the initial rightful considerate interdiction (but not out-of-reach, for then man wouldn’t have been free in his choices; for God could have easily drawn a barrier to the ability of committing the original sin—eroticism/self-reproduction, under this theory) on the deed leading to sad but unavoidable consequences, as the damaging factor prospect, was replaced with the choice of giving up on concupiscence and nesting/heirs desire, as the fixing factor prospect. Such fixing, again, must be a free choice. Yet, just as we experience often, it proves more difficult to stop a mistake (or refrain from bad habits) than it was to produce it, the same as such a reversal carries an inherent requirement for remorse and acknowledgment of learned-lessons. Then, what can help us in this pursuit? Monastic wisdom tells us that the straightest, safest way to righteousness in this lower life (and toward after-life salvation) is to walk between two spiritual walls: having the fear of God to our right (“And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile[1 Peter 1:17], which is a fear of doing wrong things compared to absolute rightness—a need for constant awareness of our deeds and words, temperance etc.—, for God is love but also impartial justice; and note that our life on earth is an exile from the correct path in the heavens: “[…] conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth[1 Peter 1:17, NASB version]; NASB italics = words not found in the original text but implied by it), and the fear of death to our left (for our first lesson in Eden was not to break God’s rules, for we will die; and when man forgot about death, he brought to death the whole of humanity), with Lord Jesus in our hearts and minds (with fallen life merely a preparation for death, there’s no better way to die than with Jesus and in search of His salvation). By doing so, we quickly understand that there’s nothing here, in the fallen world, and that we must also try to watch ourselves not to bring others (procreate) into this lower realm.