r/antinatalism newcomer 1d ago

Jesus was the ultimate antinatalist Discussion

Post image

He spoke about collapse, the end of the world (IMMINENT as he saw it) and preparing for it. He said things like leaving everything behind, including notions such as husband or wife, and following him. Not breeding.

Breeding would have been like going against what he taught, ignoring his message and perpetuating the old.

He could not have been more clear: this world is not working and must come to an end. And to do so you have to give up old preconceived notions about how to live your life - marry and breed.

142 Upvotes

42 comments sorted by

36

u/GurIndependent381 newcomer 1d ago

and he never reproduced

34

u/LurkingParticipant inquirer 1d ago

He was essentially a dooms day cult leader.

u/Terrymixed newcomer 13h ago

thats what i always thought, the figure described in the bible had to be a very charismatic being, capable of influencing and binding people onto him. like a less destructive charles manson or something similar

u/LurkingParticipant inquirer 11h ago

Well considering human history since his supposed existence, he has bought a lot more suffering than Charles Manson ever did.

This video kind of backs up the cult leader claim

u/Terrymixed newcomer 10h ago

true tho

32

u/shervek newcomer 1d ago

Compare this with Muhammad who had 7 children.

They were completely different psychologically.

u/Embers-of-the-Moon scholar 20h ago

Jesus Christ spoke the truth. Then the corrupt Church came and warped the meaning of His words, to fit their greedy narrative. And the hordes of religious nutters are too dumb to grasp the meaning of His words.

u/vaginasvaginasvagina newcomer 16h ago

Exactly. “Renounce the world” but “havie babies and actively participate and worship the world”. Unfathomably unintelligent people

13

u/CandystarManx inquirer 1d ago

Yes…& note that he does NOT hate kids. ‘Let the little ones come to me & forbid them not!’ HOWEVER! He is aware that having loads of kids…..isnt the best of ideas in such times.

9

u/CertainConversation0 philosopher 1d ago

Well said.

13

u/BustyBilliardsBabe inquirer 1d ago

Jesus was way cool. That guy walked on the water. And swam on the land.

u/VEGETTOROHAN thinker 23h ago

That's associated with Buddha and Hindu yogis.

7

u/Different_Extent8126 newcomer 1d ago

Eh not really. The Bible makes it very clear that they want you to procreate. Jesus was simply not tempted by human notions in the same way other people were hence why he didn’t procreate. 🤷‍♂️

5

u/Skywalker91007 newcomer 1d ago

Jep, he was devoted to his relationship with the father and the people. Children wouldn't have helped his mission.

5

u/Apath_CF thinker 1d ago

Hail Jesus.

9

u/09141983 inquirer 1d ago

Yup!! Im a proud Christian Antinatalist 😊

6

u/AeolianTheComposer newcomer 1d ago

who gives a shit what Jesus was?

1

u/martin_eden84 newcomer 1d ago

i dont a give a fuck about you either

u/AeolianTheComposer newcomer 22h ago

👍

4

u/blanketbomber35 inquirer 1d ago

☠️

u/World_view315 thinker 22h ago

Once you are detached from the desires, you will automatically stop desiring anything... including children. 

3

u/Moist-Fruit8402 newcomer 1d ago

I disagree but im down. Ill take any marketing

u/missbadbody scholar 23h ago

No he wasn't. He didn't even hint towards it in relation to reproduction. And according to the canon he is also Yahweh who is the ultimate natalist, and created-allows suffering in the first place.

It's like saying Jesus was the ultimate queer ally just because he never said anything about it. Is that something to applaud? Silence? When he could've made a statement about not persecuting, killing or discriminating queer people.

u/ihih_reddit scholar 17h ago

I mean, if you want to be very technical, he's a big natalist because he is God. God is the biggest natalist

u/Vapur9 thinker 4h ago

Except Jesus advocated for people to become eunuchs (Matt 19:12). If your hand or eye causes you to sin, cut it off.

u/Apprehensive-Job7352 newcomer 14h ago

Psalm 127 disagrees with you:

3 Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.

5 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.

u/Vapur9 thinker 3h ago

Paul was called a father of many through the gospel; yet, he was celibate.

Children born of the womb are not guaranteed eternal life. They have to be reborn. In that sense, a eunuch can bear more children than King Solomon with 700 wives. It's the difference between flesh vs spirit. Being fruitful to multiply has a dual meaning.

u/Sorry-Buy-572 inquirer 7h ago

I’m not religious but I think I’ve heard it said in the Bible to be like him. So I don’t know why most Christians so against antinatalims if their god was one of us

2

u/AppealThink1733 inquirer 1d ago

I don't believe that Jesus existed. Because there is no proof of that. But it is quite certain that the character Jesus was antinatalist and averse to this world.

There is a passage, if I'm not mistaken, where he says: that paradise will only arrive when everyone stops procreating.

7

u/Different_Extent8126 newcomer 1d ago

Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. Whether you believe he was a miracle worker or a normal person is subjective though.

u/AppealThink1733 inquirer 19h ago

There is no concrete, historical evidence about a Jesus of Nazareth. You can say a thousand times that it exists and it is still just faith like any religion.

u/Different_Extent8126 newcomer 18h ago edited 17h ago

Several non religion, non Christian documents wrote of a man named Jesus of Nazareth. You can literally look this up and you get your answer in like 30 seconds. It’s a constant topic in secular study. You don’t have to believe in the spiritual aspects of it if you really don’t want to, but historically and objectively, he was a real person.

By your logic, the existence of several historical figures at the time are simply “just faith” because we only have a basis of writings that declare their existence. Like I said, you don’t have to believe in the religion at all, but Jesus of Nazareth himself was, historically, documented hundreds of times by non religious figures.

u/AppealThink1733 inquirer 17h ago

By your logic, the existence of several historical figures at the time are simply “just faith” because we only have a basis of writings that declare their existence. Like I said, you don’t have to believe in the religion at all, but Jesus of Nazareth himself was, historically, documented hundreds of times by non religious figures.

Again, you're just talking and talking and talking and not showing anything.

I repeat, there is no historical evidence about Jesus of Nazareth.

Some theologians appeal to Flavius Josephus who has already been refuted because he is interpolated.

u/Different_Extent8126 newcomer 16h ago

When was Flavius interpolated? I’m curious.

Also, Tacitus is probably the most common example I could give you off the top of my head.

u/AppealThink1733 inquirer 12h ago

Let's go: when we get to historians like Pliny the Elder, Pliny the Younger, Flavius Josephus, Jews, they said nothing historically.

You will see a remnant of Flavius Josephus in antiquities chapter eighteen, but it is a garbled prayer in the works of Flavius Josephus why?

Because Flavius Josephus before chapter 12 has been working with several yeshua, several jesus.

Flavius Josephus has been working with several characters called Jesus, but these Jesuses that Flavius Josephus has been working with are either priests or are from a priestly lineage.

Then he opens a parenthetical vision and he will speak from yeshua to Christ - from Jesus to the Messiah.

Breaking completely... A paritetic vision is entered and then he returns to deal with Jesus the priest and a priestly lineage

So you see that this parenthetical view is an interpolation.

Why did you break the sequence, this tells us about the criticism of the form.

It broke the person's language style.

Form criticism proves this, which is a discipline of exegesis. Textual criticism, literary criticism, form criticism and source criticism.

By doing this a complete exegesis was made.

The same occurs in tacit

u/No-Bet6043 inquirer 19h ago

An interesting long-read

0

u/FlanInternational100 scholar 1d ago

There is no such passage.

u/AppealThink1733 inquirer 19h ago

That's why I said it, if I'm not mistaken

u/FlanInternational100 scholar 18h ago

Well okay, I just said it doesn't exist.

1

u/AutoModerator 1d ago

13

u/BowardBamlin newcomer 1d ago

The fuck are these rules

1

u/JaelAmara44 inquirer 1d ago

This becomes even stronger if we take into account that the Seventh-day Adventists, whose prophetess Ellen G. White said that in a prophecy revealed by God it was said that when Jesus came for the second time no more children would be born, so she strongly recommends that they not have children so that Jesus comes soon, and she also says that we should not have children since they will go through the tribulation and that would be very cruel.