Why are Christians against antinatalism?

>Why aren't Christians life-deniers?
They ARE. The "afterlife" is death.

TIRED: People come into being ex nihilo into a hostile world they cannot mend therefore birth is bad.

WIRED: People come into being ex Deo into a neutral world they make hostile through family and hierarchy which are bad.

Note the Christian common denominator of ignoring sex and condemning relation itself. It's practically constant throughout both Testaments so it becomes hidden in plain sight.

The main point of Christianity and also the reason why over the epochs it has so many followers is that it gives the individual a metaphysical hope, outside of the realm of empiricism. Most of the well known 'pagan' religions revolved around reincarnation and circularity, which, compared to Christianity, is nothing more than a futile process. There will be nothing genuine, nothing new, everything will be repeatable.
At the core of Norse religion, for example, lies only the primitive biological impulse of reproduction. The primitive and mindless man disguised that instinct with a false 'reason', and that's how the mythology was created: perpetuation through reproduction, Voluspa and Ragnarok.
For a religion to be metaphysical, it has to argue for celibacy. That's what original Christianity did, but that fact was later bastardised with the coming of the Catholic Church.

Prophet Mani was better than Jesus. Mani promoted antinatalism and vegetarianism. =

Yes its occurred, accept I'm not in any group and have no friends. Has it occurred to a hypothesized believer that they are just cementing the division by pointing it out as opposed to, idk, rationally looking at the fucking world/experience for evidence for their beliefs?

>That's what original Christianity did, but that fact was later bastardised with the coming of the Catholic Church.
Tell me more. I don't get, what about the priests?

I was not talking about the Catholic Church in itself supporting celibacy or not, but rather about the position of power that it has held in history. The most important thing for the misguided power of the Church is the effect it has on the common man, and you can't have much of an effect on 'lonely' old celibate men compared to young people forming couples, families, etc. Because when the man is virtuous already, there is no need for ritual and/or institution, whereas if he is not virtuous, you can continually shame and disempower him. In reality, you only want to teach 'obedience' and 'fear' as virtues, the rest is not important. Of course, I'm not saying that that's all the Catholic Church has been and has done, but it's a big part of it.
I will say that the whole Church, Catholic or not, is 'bastardised' compared to its inception (The New Testament), simply because it has become a good environment for power-hungry people to thrive in. Many of those hands that built both the churches and the Christian ideals, forgot the language of stone and wood along the way, and settled for the language of silver, gold and coin.
Overall, depending on the intellectual capabilities of the man in question, the Church can be a good thing or an unnecessary thing, as ultimately, if you extract all the dogma, folklore, symbology and iconography from Christianity (yes, I include folklore in Christianity too, even though in fact they are 'pagan' relics, it doesn't matter, since they have become largely incorporated, especially in the medieval man's Christian-cultural ethos), you're essentially left with one form or another of Platonic idealism, from which, arguably, all true art, namely music, stems. (I say 'true' art, in the sense of the most abstract form, not in the sense of music having inherent value over the other arts mainly because of this level of abstraction, because that's not the case; I will say that, incidentally or not, the highest art created was indeed in the form of music - Bach - but if Bach had not existed, literature would take the title, at least in my opinion)

Also, for me, the two problems of Christianity (the first one which I deem more so 'objective' than the second, which is partly more oriented on aesthetics) and why it is not the best form of religion that could be achieved following its principles are:
1) the idea of an absolute God which leaves no space for free will. If you take the Bible as a whole, the mere idea of free will is abolished right in the Genesis, where you plainly observe all of God's characteristics, motivations and powers (additionally, I will say that this is the reason why Genesis is possibly the worst and the most absurd/childish of the religious works). In the context of the 'highest' power, the ideal Christianity would: 1.1) completely disregard the Old Testament; 1.2) reformulate/change parts or the whole New Testament in order to remove all of the references to the Old Testament. Simply put, traditional Christianity has Jesus saying that God is 'given' and that he is the son of God, meanwhile the ideal Christianity would have Jesus not saying that God is 'given' but that he is indeed the son of God, which leaves room for free will, because, like I said, without the Old Testament and the references to it, the individual interested in Christianity has no 'dogma' referring to God's attributes given to him, from that point on it would be an essential matter of belief. Also, a tertiary argument for the ideal Christianity, which is included in what I've said so far, is the abolishment of the repugnant idea of 'original sin' as the 'apriority' of human life. (I say 'human life' following Descartes dualism, as in: lower form/life [empirical state; the body] + higher form/life [ideal state; the mind] = human form/life)
2) the fact that because the Christian/Judaic God is absolute, there isn't really such a thing as 'archetypal' genius. By 'archetype' I mean a form (NOT in the Platonic sense) that is inferior to the highest plane of being (the metaphysical/ideal [in the Platonic sense] plane) but superior to the human (empirical) plane. Just like humans, this 'archetype' shares a double nature, the ideal nature and the empiric/aesthetic nature (not to be confused with the Aesthetics in the true philosophical sense, I'm talking about the 'beauty' of real, concrete objects in the human world and their [ideal/superior] meaning). In short, you can indeed find some decent archetypal imagery in Christianity (or Judaism), namely the Genesis, Job, the slaying of the Dragon (if you're a Jordan Peterson fan go fuck your mother), the marriage of Christ to the Church, etc., but these are absolutely frail in comparison to Dionysus-Zagreus (or the Oprhic Dionysus, which is the older version of the Greek god, not so great for life in society because of its rituals), Hermes, Apollo, Odin, just to name a few of the European ones (although, admittedly, their roots go far beyond both the 'European' term and actual geographical space), Shiva, Indra, Marduk, Tiamat, etc.

As a last mention, I'd say that the most valuable archetypal imagery found in Christianity are in the Gospel of Mark (i.e. the son of God not fully understanding his own identity/self and asking others who he is, which essentially is free will) and the Book of Revelations, which is the greatest part of the Bible.

care to expand on the archetypes in mark/why are the revelations the greatest part?

>I'm not in any group
Everyone is in a group - even loners.

what did they all say user???? All this rhetoric build up, well done, but I'm on a serious edge now aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Attached: 1558054220629.jpg (500x336, 21K)

I think their greatness is a more of an intuitive matter. What personally makes me realize their value are all of the artistic instantiations that I deem as stemming from those two biblical canons. To give concrete examples:
Preludes 1 (which is the most beautiful and at the same time hellish-sounding Bach piece I've heard), 4 (Gethsemane-like moment), 8, 12 (saving of the Damned), 22 (the Passion; this is one of the most obvious ones in WTC). I won't go into the fugues since they can be more subtle, but if you're interested, I consider no. 2,4,8,6 and 24 to be superior. Book 2 mostly has a different tone and Bach was much older at that time, so I mostly prefer the first book the most, although the 24th prelude (especially towards the final statement) might be the best among all of my favorites.
youtube.com/watch?v=1GXHjxvSi24
youtube.com/watch?v=zdD_QygwRuY
youtube.com/watch?v=xFTvjRpaU38
youtube.com/watch?v=CL00B8TQMBQ
youtube.com/watch?v=0wCNsU0jA6c
Some of them are even interchangeable in regards to what biblical scenes correspond the most, but there's always at least one.
From Bach I'll also mention the Kyrie eleison I and Agnus Dei from the Mass in B(youtube.com/watch?v=tdLCcQixNvg) and also Contrapunctus inversus a 4 (played by Rubsam on the organ, the more recent album, can't find it on YT)
Other art forms: works of Dostoyevsky (quite obvious), Victor Hugo, Tarkovsky (especially The Mirror and Stalker), Bela Tarr (Satantango especially; and I generally consider Tarr to be too obscure intentionally, but there are some certain genius moments), Dreyer (Ordet), Klimov (Come and see)
PS: I prefer Sviatoslav Richter for almost all Bach piano pieces that he recorded and Herreweghe-Scholl for the cantatas

I was rushing so ignore the obvious formulation stupidity in some of what I've said

No i meant if you could expand on the concept of end times

You know that Ecclesiastes is a dialogue right? The author is essentially writing out his thought process and that quote is in the middle. In the end he concludes life is worth living and there is nothing better than for people to enjoy what station in life God has given them. It's a pro life book.

bcs christians, religious ppl in general are stupid

based michelstaedter poster

I slightly misread your message the first time, but even so I managed to touch on it a bit. Like I said, I believe the most important archetype in the Gospel of Mark is the 'God'-figure finding its own identity in the human perception (Jesus constantly asking his disciples what the 'people' say/think about him), followed by the agony in the Garden which is an obvious type of experience throughout all human life - fear, sorrow, decisiveness, moments of disbelief, etc. (all of which are more pronounced in Mark). Also, there's a clear distinction between Mark's Jesus, who is especially confused and sorrowful at times, and John's Jesus, who is definitely more in line with the absolute dogma and law of Christianity, and also more in line with the Book of Revelations, although in this last canon, not the dogma is what interests me, only the mythical imagery.
I find that the three main points/imageries in Revelations are the figure of the Lamb with seven eyes and seven horns, the Sixth seal and the Whore of Babylon, all of which reach deep within the human nature and have different statements to make: about arbitrators, about the atrocities of evil, ignorance/futility/absurdity ( And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb).

thanks for the replies

Attached: Ottheinrich_Folio287r_Rev4-5.jpg (1280x1069, 295K)

you're welcome

Attached: tarkovsky_polaroids_07-550x550.jpg (550x550, 50K)

They are not, marriage is seen as an extra trial and it is fine not to go for it if you know you will fail and sin.

Even aside from Christianity or Judaism at large, you've posted that quote out of context of solely the brief book it's written in, Ecclesiastes. Ecclesiastes is in part a parable of shifting feelings and despite moments of utter woe (as you quoted) it ultimately articulates an earthy ethic of joy despite uncertainty and suffering (as you neglected). Go read Moby-Dick.

And you're the smart one? Is coincidence real or does eveything follow a causal chain of events.

The new testament states clear philosophical points about the origin of the world, the features of the world, man's part and man's limitations.

Care to show me a better book that does all of this?

basically any scientific book
Saying that testament makes the best statement on world origins is the epitome of stupidity. Stop believing in magick you christcucks

ecclesiates is every athiests favorite book

Maybe if they misread it. Ecclesiastes conveys strong religious attitudes and references God's presence throughout. It is well built for the God of the skeptically inclined, though, the God of whom we know little or nothing, or at the very least the God who is not anthropomorphized, the God who is not near-identical to other ethnic Gods yet somehow different, the God who is not nigh-opposite to other ethnic Gods yet somehow the same. Read Spinoza.

More like every soon to be atheists favorite. r/atheism guys like Genesis the best because it's in the front and let's them use their popsci knowledge.

I like Jonah the best because it's the earliest Jewish comedy I've read.

The Ecclesiastes devotee is the only true Christian. Ecclesiastes is at its core a consolatio directed at that religious melancholy later termed weltschmerz, but weltschmerz is a craving for God, a need for God, and an intense awareness of the distantness of God from the mundane affairs of life beneath the baleful eye of the immanent sun. Without this weltschmerz you do not love God but merely the earthly idea of God, and as such do not love God, not really, especially insofar as such misled worshipers permit themselves to grow tangled in contradictory dogmatisms founded in little more than theological tradition and the occasional impressive psychotic break. God is not these things. God is unknowable or at least unknown: I happily await him. Memento mori; ars longa, vita brevis; amor fati.

Cause they don't care about the quality of life but the quanity of humans that exist.

citation needed on that chief

The greatest virtue is unachievable, that is, the virtue of never having been born. Beyond this, they value death over life.

It's annoying the way that people accept Christian conclusions but reject the premises. Then they act like they've done all the work

>quote out of context
The verse itself is the context.

It's certainly not a book for Christians because it doesn't fit their conception of God.

If you're a Catholic parent at least you could reason that it would be wrong to have a child when he is almost surely going to Hell (see: Saints on this topic)

>The verse itself is the context.
Go reread the book.
>It's certainly not a book for Christians because it doesn't fit their conception of God.
Go reread the book.

>he who has never existed
"he" who? lol

Because they're pussies if they do.
Real Christians have as many children as they can and they drag them through the hell that is life to show them God.