Being given the opportunity (through existence) to spend eternity in everlasting bliss with God far outweighs the chance that we might choose to reject that opportunity…and the ultimate reward is far greater than nonexistence and never having an opportunity for that reward.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?
Yes I did. At least tacitly. By living in a country and recieving the benefits the State offers…I agree to abide by those laws.Going to jail for committing a crime is one of them. You didn’t agree in advance to the law that you violated.
In a manner of speaking, yes. You can make the exchange. Unfortunately its a package. You either opt for it and take responsibilties, or pitch it and lose it all including your soul which goes to the Devil. Sounds extremely fair to me in that heaven etc. is a gift to start with, not something you deserve or earn. It is hardly “unjust” for someone to not give you a gift, particularly if you don’t want it and the strings attached. Your decision son. There are only two choices God or Satan, just ain’t no mister-in-between, just as there is not any free lunch. There are always strings attached. Nothing un-fair about that.Is it the benefits exchanged? If so…shouldn’t we be able to give up the benefits in exchange for relieving ourselves of any responsibilities?
Don’t look at it as punishment, per se. It is more a natural consequence for the choice you make.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?
This is the contract theory of justice again, and we’ve already seen that it doesn’t work. If you are going to keep bringing it up than I’m going to keep giving examples of why it doesn’t make it.Yes I did. At least tacitly. By living in a country and recieving the benefits the State offers…I agree to abide by those laws.
That is my choice because if I don’t like the laws I can, in fact, LEAVE THE COUNTRY. They won’t stop me. If I want to stop voting and stop recieving America’s protection, I can go to Holland and smoke as much marijuana as I want.
But there is no “renouncing citizenship” for existence.
So what’s wrong with forcing the Muslim woman to stay? Under my might makes right theory, it’s perfectly acceptable. But you say that it violates your contract theory - which as we saw above it really doesn’t - but let’s pretend that it does. Who is being just here, me or you? If you say it’s you, then why? It looks to me like it’s just because you say so. You’re theory of justice is arbitrary.It seems rather like a communist country, where not only are there laws I never agreed to…but I am punished if I try to leave to move to a country where I like the rules better…
No one answered my muslim woman complaint. She is kept in a community that she very might well choose to leave if she had the choice…but is forced to stay, and then punished when she breaks the code of the community she never wanted to be part of in the first place, and would have left if given the choice.
Maybe some meant that to be a sarcastic answer, but I didn’t. It is the way life is. The contract theory of justice that you have set forth does not represent reality. It is a nice concept that we all sit down and agree to this and that, and if someone doesn’t keep their part of the bargain than they deserve the consequences. It just isn’t how the world works though.Sarcastic, “that’s how life is” answers aren’t helpful.
God is justice. He defines justice. Why? Yes, partly because he is in charge. He gets to call the shots, but it isn’t as simple as that. Our very being seeks the good that ultimately is God. Since justice is an attribute of God, we also seek justice from God. True, God did make us this way. To seek the ultimate good so that we could find him. He did that in part by giving us the benefit of grace. It is a gift though, we can’t bargain for it. We can reject the grace that is offered of course. To understand more about being and the purpose of being, you will need some elementary understanding of Thomas Aquinas.I want to know the theological reason why this is considered just. Does it have something to do with not truly being able to will our own non-existence? Something to do with our very nature already being made as assuming this covenant? Something about the absolute authority of God? What is it that let’s God punish us for breaking rules we never agreed to? Is it the benefits exchanged? If so…shouldn’t we be able to give up the benefits in exchange for relieving ourselves of any responsibilities?
I’d say my “contractual theory” has less to with what is “justice” per se (justice is giving to each their rights)…and more to do with what this “duty” is.He is in duty bound to strive to fulfil the designs of his Creator, he must exercise his faculties and conduct his life according to the intentions of his Lord and Master. Because he is under these obligations he is consequently invested with rights, God-given and primordial, antecedent to the State and independent of it.
Actually duty implies obligation not debt. We are obliged to obey God not because there is something we owe but because of who God is. Our obedience to our natural parents is due because they have that right over us. Their dignity as parents demands obedience from us as their children. Equally the dignity of a wife demands for the husband to love her not because of something that is owed (i.e. love can never be repaid) but because the dignity of the person demands this from him. Our duty to people is dependent upon their dignity and the relationship that exists (or ought to exist) between them.“Duty” implies some debt, yes? A repaying of a debt. But what debt can man have to God? The debt of our existence? But that was a “free-gift”, I thought. By what title to we owe him anything for a free-gift we never agreed to?
No. It’s not hell that bothers me. If people are going to take the benefits of being happy…they have to accept responsibilities and the punishments of falling short of those responsibilities.I sympathize with your problem, because the concept of an eternal Hell is the one thing that, though I agree with it since that’s what the Bible seems to teach and what the Church certainly teaches, I am saddened by and would gladly change if I could
Like I said before, God’s creative act is good in itself. God cannot take it back and say “oops I made a mistake”. God does not make mistakes. He can also not say “I am not worthy or important enough to bring some one into existence so that they may have a chance to know me”. God is definetly worthy and important enough for this.But shouldn’t there be a way to be niether happy nor sad? Like I said, a way to give up obligations in exchange for giving up benefits?
Understand that the reason hell has bothered me is the issue you’re talking about: Not everyone bargains willingly, and some would rather just not exist than sign onto the “deal.” For those who actually want to exist forever, as you say, there’s really no issue…you trade the impossibility of hell for the possibility of heaven. Fair deal. If someone’s truly neutral, in willing to accept nonexistence, it seems harsh. So we are indeed more on the same page than you know, though I’ve worked this issue in ways that are personally satisfying to me (though I don’t say it will be for everyone).No. It’s not hell that bothers me. If people are going to take the benefits of being happy…they have to accept responsibilities and the punishments of falling short of those responsibilities.
But shouldn’t there be a way to be niether happy nor sad? Like I said, a way to give up obligations in exchange for giving up benefits?
If someone wants to exist…then they must accept the consequences of hell. But why isn’t wishing ones own non-existence a valid choice?
It is true that IF you have valid Title to something, or at least more of a title over it than anyone else…you have to willingly consent to bargain that title in any deal.
Exactly. That’s what I was trying to say. I never volunteered for this, so how can someone expect something from me?A stranger can’t just volunteer your house for a party or else fine you, because they never had title to your house and you never offered it in exchange for some sort of consideration.
The answer is that the natural title to your existence belongs first and foremost to God by both his and your nature. “I never agreed to the arrangement” is not a valid answer, because by the very nature of the universe…it was never yours to agree to. In the “cosmic legal” sense…God owns you, your life is His, not your own.
Our society makes us think that WE are the first owners of our lives, and that if we give them over to anyone (in authority, or religion, or labor etc) that WE must enter that bargain.
Ah. Now THAT’s the kind of answer I was looking for. Very good.But the truth is, your life was never yours in the first place. The natural title belongs to God primarily, and you only secondarily. And he entrusts this primary titleship to your parents until you are an adult, and to the authority of the State.
Okay. Good. That makes sense. Thank you. I have an answer now.Your life is not yours to bargain with. Even if God didn’t offer eternal life…he could still punish you arbitrarily if he wanted to. You have no particular right not to suffer. It is in pure gratuitousness that he gives eternal life to those who obey him. “Obedience” is a condition for recieiving that gift, but it certainly isn’t “traded” for it…as it is not yours to trade.
I am going to presume that you are Catholic at this point, because I have to say that, on investigation, the Bible texts actually present a better case for annihilation than they do for perpetual torment, as noted in the “Eternal Hell Fire” thread in the “Sacred Scripture” forum. As such, your argument is not with the Bible, nor, I would suggest, with God personally, but with your church’s representation of both.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?