A Just God?

[Struggling]

I know there must be an answer to this, and I am sure it is something really simple and beautiful I’m overlooking…

But lately I’ve been troubled by more and more hearing from my peers (and even being tempted to say myself) that common adolescent complaint, “But I never asked to exist!”

Now, dismissing it as just “adolescent angst” is what many people I have asked about it have done…but I think the question poses a significant philosophical problem.

How can a just God force existence on us, and then expect us to follow his rules or else go to hell?

I agree that he can create us. And once he creates us and we have reached an age of consent he can make a deal that says “In exchange for eternal life, you agree to follow these rules, and agree that if you don’t, you go to hell.”

But for such a meriting to truly be fair, shouldn’t we be able to choose simple anihilation? Shouldn’t we be able to kill ourselves without going to hell? Or be able to live a life of “sin” but then simply have Nothing after death and not hell as long as we never agreed to the heaven covenant?

It seems someone signed a contract for me I might never have agreed to in the first place? What is the answer to this?

Of course I have to exist to be able to choose to exist, so I never could truly “ask to be concieved”. But once I am being, why can’t I choose to return to non-existence.

How can there be any obligations on someone in a situation they didn’t choose?

I mean…I know the scales will all be balanced if I do, in fact, get to heaven. But Jesus himself said it would be better if the damned were never born. So why were they?

 

[Steven_Merten]

Hello Struggling,

I look at God’s gift of free willed life as a tremendous opportunity. When you look at the universe and all of creation and understand that you, through free will, have been bestowed the tremendous opportunity to choose to love our God, who created it all, this amazes me.

Please visit Choices Of The Heart

 

[Texan_in_DC]

How can a just God force existence on us, and then expect us to follow his rules or else go to hell?

What if “force excistence on us” is the wrong terminology?
Meaning what if God chose us or you or me at the same time we chose Him?
Struggling;1592291:

But for such a meriting to truly be fair, shouldn’t we be able to choose simple anihilation? Shouldn’t we be able to kill ourselves without going to hell? Or be able to live a life of “sin” but then simply have Nothing after death and not hell as long as we never agreed to the heaven covenant?

Again you are assuming things that you dont have an answer for, and in another way you are wrong in thought because we do choose to accept God and His laws or His ways freely, through His love He has given us free will. Us Catholics believe that after this life many of us will be in another place that we call Purgatory which will cleanse us prior to meeting God, the ones that are in hell choose hell willingly and knowingly of those consequences. You are assuming that is unfair that God sends people to hell, but again those who are in hell in a way not only chosed to be there but want that seperation from God.

It seems someone signed a contract for me I might never have agreed to in the first place? What is the answer to this?

One could say that prior to your existence you did indeed say yes just as God did in your being, or person.

And in another way yes someone did or did not “sign a contract” if born a Catholic you were probably baptized as an infant therefore your parents “signed your contract” per say or you became a part of God’s family, but even if that was the case or in creation God signed your contract for you just as your parents did or did not do at your infant baptism you as an adult are free to uphold that “contract” or not too.

If one is punished for not upholding you end of the agreement then one knowingly accepts that punishment.

Is it fair to put a man in jail for a period of time just because he does not accept a law that got him in trouble in the 1st place, is that fair? It is if the man knew the law in the 1st place it would not be if he did not.

 

[tdgesq]

There is a simple and beautiful answer. God loves you so much that he will not allow you to destroy your soul. If you have doubts about this answer, show me how not giving you this option makes God less good, less just, etc.

 

[Struggling]

Is it fair to put a man in jail for a period of time just because he does not accept a law that got him in trouble in the 1st place, is that fair? It is if the man knew the law in the 1st place it would not be if he did not.

By living in society, the man tacitly accepts it’s laws. And as long as you live in society, yes, you should obey it’s laws because you are getting the benefits of living in a society. Quid pro quo.

But a man always had the option of leaving the country.

The man can turn down society’s benefits for the sake of having no responsibility either. In other words, he can choose living in the jungle or international waters as the “neutral point” between society and jail. Yet there is no “neutral point” between heaven and hell.

Sure, you can break the contract and suffer the consequences…but you never agreed to such a contract, so shouldn’t there be a way to “leave the country” as it were…a way to give up any possible punishment in exchange for giving up any possible reward?

Perhaps the answer is that since the possible reward is infinite, and responsibilities are only finite…God can assume that you will “take the deal” in creating you because you (not being able to speak for yourself) tacitly accept it, seeing as it’s such a great deal (the infinite possibility of reward can be assumed to outweigh any finite responsibility imposed), so God in life, and the Church in baptism, can sign the contract for you because it is assumed that you will take such a great deal…is that the answer?

If so…that answers the objections to God creating me and then giving me obligations (because the reward is infinite) and the objection to the Church baptizing me and then giving me obligations (because the reward is infinite)…

But then what about, per example, the State or my Parents or my Teachers. I didn’t ask for my parents to have me, for the State to guard me, or the School to educate me. This was thrust on me. How can they then expect anything from me, seeing as I never agreed to the arrangement? In these temporal cases, there can be no plea to Infinite Benefit because having a good home, protection, and a good education (while nice) are certainly finite benefits, and so certainly make it a whole lot more doubtful that I would have willingly made the exchange if given the choice. So while God can expect things of me after bringing me into existence (because in exchange he offered me infinite bliss) do my parents have a right to expect things from me, seeing as the benefit they offer in exchange is NOT infinite? Is the fourth commandment out of natural law, in that sense, out of natural justice…or is it only on the direct will of God that it is enforced?

 

[alexaustralia]

How can a just God force existence on us, and then expect us to follow his rules or else go to hell?

How can one force existence to a non-existent identity? Sorry just had to ask…but being slightly more serious…

God created us with an inbuilt necessity for Him. Therefore choosing God is not an external obligation, but if understood properly, an internal yearning of the human soul. Seeking a relationship with God then is not an imposition on our will but a fulfillment thereof.

And by looking at it in God’s perspective, God’s creative act is in itself always good. Therefore in God’s mind the pros of existence always outweigh the cons, basically because existence brings forth the opportunity to develop a friendship with God and no matter how much evil can be experienced, God’s love will always trump it. And this leads to my next point; God’s love. One can only love an existent being (if the person no longer exists then one’s attachment is not to the person but to a memory). For God to go from creating (in itself an act of love) to destroying (in itself an act void of love) is impossible. Let me explain, by destroying a person completely God would have to go from loving the person to “loving” a memory. But in the true sense of the word one can never love a memory but rather merely form an attachment to it; therefore destroying a person is an act void of love as it nullifies the capacity to continue loving the person. If God has the capacity to be unloving (or to cease to love) then he cannot possibly be God.

Then the question arises what if we don’t want to have a relationship with God. Well God grants us our wish with Hell.

But then the objection could arise … but they are robbed of the opportunity to be fulfilled as people, in ther words to be happy.

However as I said before, God created us with the necessity for him in order to be fulfilled…happiness void of God is impossible. God made it that way
Hope it helps

God bless

Alex

 

[tdgesq]

Well it seems that there are many things to which you didn’t agree that are the case regardless. So wait just a minute here, in order for God to be just he had to give you the ability to choose the opposite of everything that has ever happened in your life? Your existence, your parents, where you were born, the current pope, etc. Obviously that can’t be the case.

 

[Struggling]

in order for God to be just he had to give you the ability to choose the opposite of everything that has ever happened in your life?

No. I didn’t say that.

He can do whatever he wants with me, obviously. The question has less to do with what He does to me, and more with what he can or cannot justly expect ME to do in return. No one HAS to give me what I want, obviously. But if they don’t give me what I want…how can I owe them anything in return? And even if someone does give me what I want…I don’t owe them anything in return unless we previously arranged that such would be the case. A man washes my car even though I didn’t ask him to…I am not obliged by justice to pay him anything if we never agreed to such an arrangement in the first place.

An afghani woman is stoned to death for not wearing a burka. If given the choice to leave her community and the muslim faith…she would have. But there was no such choice. The men in her community forced her to stay, on account of all the benefits of Islam. So she gets these benefits (though she HAD to accept them), but then also is forced to take on the responsibilities and consequences if not fullfilling those responsibilities. If she agreed to the consequences in exchange for the benefits, fine. But she didn’t agree, and in fact would have left if that was an option. But it wasn’t, if she tried to leave…that would also be punished. Is that Just? She never agreed to be part of this community, and if given the chance…would have left. Giving up the benefits in exchange for escaping the consequences…

 

[tdgesq]

So then a just God has to give you what you want. Is this what you are saying? I am in good faith - promise - trying to understand what you are saying here.

Maybe it’s this, God can’t expect any more back than you are willing to give him, regardless of what he gives you.

 

[Struggling]

So then a just God has to give you what you want. Is this what you are saying?

No. He doesn’t HAVE to give me anything. But if He doesn’t, how can He expect anything from me?

I believe in God and the Catholic faith 100%…but I’m just looking for the theological answer: how can God oblige us to a contract we never agreed to (ie, heaven in exchange for good behavior, but hell if we default…)

 

[tdgesq]

No. He doesn’t HAVE to give me anything. But if He doesn’t, how can He expect anything from me?

I believe in God and the Catholic faith 100%…but I’m just looking for the theological answer: how can God oblige us to a contract we never agreed to (ie, heaven in exchange for good behavior, hell if we default…)

Well, it seems to me that you are just describing the way things are. If he doesn’t give you what you want, then you won’t give anything back. Fine. make the choice not to give anything to God because he didn’t give you what you wanted.

Here’s your “theological” answer. He doesn’t oblige you to do anything. Go ahead and do exactly what you’ve described. God didn’t do anything for you, so don’t do anything for him. That would be an inadvisable choice of course.

 

[Struggling]

He doesn’t oblige you to do anything. Go ahead and do exactly what you’ve described. God didn’t do anything for you, so don’t do anything for him. That would be an inadvisable choice of course.

Then that is an obligation.

I didn’t say he FORCES us.

I said “obliges”. Which means that, indeed, I can freely choose not to. But then there are negative consequences.

No actor under contract can be FORCED to act in a movie for the studio he is under contract with. But if he doesn’t, he won’t merely not get paid…but might actually get FINED. But that is okay because they agreed beforehand to that contract.

I don’t have to give God anything, true. But if I don’t…he doesn’t simply give me nothing in return. Instead, he positively punishes me. Instead of just ignoring me, he actively prosecutes me.

I give God 10, he gives me 10. I give God -10, he gives me -10. But when I give him 0, shouldn’t he just give me 0. Instead, it seems, he gives me a negative amount. There is no neutral, non-involved choice.

You don’t pay a merchant, they won’t give you anything in return. Simple as that. You just walk past them and never interact. But the merchant certainly wouldn’t be justified in then chasing you down and taking stuff from you! Unless you broke a freely entered contract.

It’s like those companies that send you free stamps in the mail and say “If you don’t send these back in 30 days, we will charge you.” That’s illegal! You never asked for the stamps, so you have no obligation to take your time to send them back. You have to agree beforehand to such an arrangement, or else you don’t owe them for it.

If I don’t do anything for God, he certainly wouldn’t be obliged to give me Heaven. But he does not merely withold heaven…but also positively inflicts hell! Shouldn’t there be a neutral option of just non-existence?

 

[tdgesq]

Then that is an obligation.

I didn’t say he FORCES us.

I said “obliges”. Which means that, indeed, I can freely choose not to. But then there are negative consequences.

That is not what “oblige” means. At the very least there must be some constraint.

No actor under contract can be FORCED to act in a movie for the studio he is under contract with. But if he doesn’t, he won’t merely not get paid…but might actually get FINED. But that is okay because they agreed beforehand to that contract.

Okay, so according to you this life is unjust because everything ought to be contractual. In other words, anything negative that happens to you that you didn’t agree to in advance is unjust. Parents obliged you (in the correct sense of the word) to do things you didn’t like when you were a kid, all unjust because you didn’t agree in advance. Your contractual theory of the world is silly.

Tell the next policeman that pulls you over that you didn’t contract with him that you would obey the speed limit. See how that works out for you. I could list numerous other examples. Perhaps you are blaming God for the fact that the world doesn’t follow your contract theory. If so, let me know.

 

[Struggling]

Okay, so according to you this life is unjust because everything ought to be contractual. In other words, anything negative that happens to you that you didn’t agree to in advance is unjust.

No. Stuff can happen to me that I didn’t agree to. I’m fine with that.

But if I didn’t agree to something, then I shouldn’t be punished for not reacting to it in any particular way.

Lead me to water against my will, fine…but then can you really expect me to drink?

 

[tdgesq]

No. Stuff can happen to me that I didn’t agree to. I’m fine with that.

But if I didn’t agree to something, then I shouldn’t be punished for not reacting to it in any particular way.

Lead me to water against my will, fine…but then can you really expect me to drink?

How about that you exist without your permission and can’t snuff it out, are you fine with that? We get punished all the time in this life for things to which we didn’t agree. I hope I don’t have to point that out to you again.

Then don’t drink. It’s up to you. Oh no, here comes the theory of contract again. If I don’t drink then something negative will happen to me, and I think that I should be able to choose without anything negative happening to me. Why? Your theory is arbitrary. Why should I or anyone else believe in it. Hey, my theory is might makes right. Whoever is the strongest should make the rules. There are no contracts. Tell me why my theory is wrong and yours is right.

 

[Struggling]

Why should I or anyone else believe in it. Hey, my theory is might makes right. Whoever is the strongest should make the rules. There are no contracts. Tell me why my theory is wrong and yours is right.

I’m not saying yours is wrong. But it certainly isn’t what is generally concieved as “just”. And God is supposed to be just.

How, then, can he send us this metaphorical unrequested stamp in the mail, and then expect us to take the initiative to mail them back or else we get charged?

Do you see what I’m saying?

Another, related, question. How can a pagan commit mortal sin? If mortal sin is the loss of sanctifying grace, which the pagan never had?

Perhaps a pagan CAN’T go to hell, but can’t go to heaven either? Maybe that is the trade off of baptism? In baptism, you make a covenant with God saying that you will follow certain commandments in exchange for heaven, but you agree that if you break the covenant you will go to hell. However, you don’t have to enter the deal and so while that means you can’t get heaven, you can’t get hell either? And so the pagans go to a sort of limbo or are annihilated?

 

[vince2paul]

Shouldn’t we be able to kill ourselves without going to hell?

Yes, you can actually, if in the process you don’t commit mortal sin, if there’s no knowledge/consent given.

Such as mentally-challenged person might commit suicide and not committing mortal sin.

I remember a story of Padre Pio (or I think it’s him) where a woman went to see him and asked him whether his husband who committed suicide go to hell or not. Apparently, he did not, because the husband make an act of contriction. I don’t know how it happened.

Well, relax everyone! I know I don’t answer the question.
I’m just trying to make this thread less intense.

 

[deb1]

Please remember that the young man who started this post is only 17 and that is an age when people ask questions. He might very well become a stronger Christian by having his questions answered kindly.

 

[deb1]

I know there must be an answer to this, and I am sure it is something really simple and beautiful I’m overlooking…

But lately I’ve been troubled by more and more hearing from my peers (and even being tempted to say myself) that common adolescent complaint, “But I never asked to exist!”

Now, dismissing it as just “adolescent angst” is what many people I have asked about it have done…but I think the question poses a significant philosophical problem.

How can a just God force existence on us, and then expect us to follow his rules or else go to hell?

I agree that he can create us. And once he creates us and we have reached an age of consent he can make a deal that says “In exchange for eternal life, you agree to follow these rules, and agree that if you don’t, you go to hell.”

But for such a meriting to truly be fair, shouldn’t we be able to choose simple anihilation? Shouldn’t we be able to kill ourselves without going to hell? Or be able to live a life of “sin” but then simply have Nothing after death and not hell as long as we never agreed to the heaven covenant?

It seems someone signed a contract for me I might never have agreed to in the first place? What is the answer to this?

Of course I have to exist to be able to choose to exist, so I never could truly “ask to be concieved”. But once I am being, why can’t I choose to return to non-existence.

How can there be any obligations on someone in a situation they didn’t choose?

I mean…I know the scales will all be balanced if I do, in fact, get to heaven. But Jesus himself said it would be better if the damned were never born. So why were they?

This is not a new question. Teenagers have been asking this for years. I remember a friend of mine, saying something along the lines of, “I didn’t ask to be born!”

Ironically, it was usually the kids from the nice homes with good parents who asked these questions. The reason that I never asked such a question was because I came from an abusive home. I had learned at an early age that life is unfair. I think that in adolescence young adults from better families are just figuring that out, so maybe it is a harder revelation for them.

God is just, but on a scale that we humans can not yet comprehend.

I Hope that your questions on suicide doesn’t come from a desire to end your life.

 

[tdgesq]

I’m not saying yours is wrong. But it certainly isn’t what is generally concieved as “just”. And God is supposed to be just.

Now we are getting closer. Obviously you can’t mean that general consensus makes something just. It was generally conceived at one time that slavery was just. Popular opinion doesn’t equal justice.

Actually you would have been correct in calling me on my theory of justice that might makes right. Was it justice when Jesus was crucified and died? How about when millions of Catholics and Jews were exterminated by the godless Nazi regime? Nope, my theory doesn’t always work either. Well let’s see if your contract theory works then.

As we’ve already seen, you can be obliged to do something without making a contractual agreement. Going to jail for committing a crime is one of them. You didn’t agree in advance to the law that you violated. It may even be a law that you totally disagree with. For instance, maybe you are all for the legalization of marijuana and don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. Doesn’t matter. If you get caught with it, you will be prosecuted and punished for the crime. So the contractual theory of justice doesn’t work either.

I’m going to anticipate an objection. You have said that at least we have the freedom to kill ourselves to escape the authorities of this world. Not even that is true. Prisoners often try to kill themselves and are prevented from doing so while incarcerated. Our own fear of death often prevents us from killing ourselves in order to escape the ills of this world. Doctors who take care of a patient who has attempted suicide are thwarting his attempt. Heck, attempted suicide is a crime in many states. It doesn’t appear that you can establish injustice through the distinction that you have the freedom to end your life in this world but not in the next.

Then what defines justice? Better yet, who defines justice. God does. Of course you already know this from your Christian upbringing. But I hope you see now why it makes sense. You want to come up with your own definition of justice apart from God. The problem you have is that God defines justice.

How, then, can he send us this metaphorical unrequested stamp in the mail, and then expect us to take the initiative to mail them back or else we get charged?

Do you see what I’m saying?

I do see what you are saying. You are saying that it is unjust that God would not give you another option. Why is that unjust? Because you just think it is? Well my own subjective notion of justice (might makes right) is different from yours. So who is right? Me or you. Neither of us are. We are both just giving our own arbitrary standards of justice. God defines justice, and apparently he doesn’t find it unjust to deny us the ability to destroy our immaterial souls. It is, of course, legitimate to ask why God would not give us this ability.