2nd Half of the Truth

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 1^st half of the truth as science has determined.

As harsh as this may sound, we are an accident of nature. Which leads to the 2^nd 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 6^th 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]}

2. 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.

3. “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.”.

4. “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 1^st 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 9^th 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 (2^nd 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 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!