God forced me into existence

[AndyF]

dostoyevskyfan:

Not even the greatest possible pleasures offered to us in this world, heroin, orgies, cocaine, etc justify eternal torture, as described in the 32nd chapter of Teresa of Avila’s autobiography, the Fatima children, and the passages in the Bible.

I believe intrinsically that if the existence of hell can be justified, an absolute imperative would be the choice to exist.

Andy

 

[tonyrey]

The Catholic Church does not teach nor believe that God enters into a series of discussions with prospective souls regarding the prospect of his willing them into existence.

Only a mindless robot could make the absurd assertion that a prospective soul can have a discussion… I’m beginning to understand why you can’t prove you exist!

 

[slywakka250]

I’m frustrated. I spent all day yesterday studying this thread, and I’m working on writing up my replies and arguments. I Just need a break from the forum for now. But I need to say to all of you that I am in a very similar position as Zatzat here as far as my being frustrated with a God who would force existence, the possibility of hell, and most importantly the great gamble and the odds of hell from an existential perspective, taken from the perspective of the final outcome, which God foreknew, and brought about by Providence. (see my other posts)

I really need a lot of help with this, cause this is a HUGE obstacle to my faith right now, as its all I can think about, I’m obsessed with this issue, and am unable to pray or even believe in God as long as this issue looms in front of me. Its very frustrating, and a cause for despair for me. I am very lost, and Thanks to everyone who posts on this thread, it is really helpful, giving me things to pray about; I will be back to discuss this later though in this or another thread.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m frustrated. I spent all day yesterday studying this thread, and I’m working on writing up my replies and arguments. I Just need a break from the forum for now. But I need to say to all of you that I am in a very similar position as Zatzat here as far as my being frustrated with a God who would force existence, the possibility of hell, and most importantly the great gamble and the odds of hell from an existential perspective, taken from the perspective of the final outcome, which God foreknew, and brought about by Providence. (see my other posts)

I really need a lot of help with this, cause this is a HUGE obstacle to my faith right now, as its all I can think about, I’m obsessed with this issue, and am unable to pray or even believe in God as long as this issue looms in front of me. Its very frustrating, and a cause for despair for me. I am very lost, and Thanks to everyone who posts on this thread, it is really helpful, giving me things to pray about; I will be back to discuss this later though in this or another thread.

In the meantime remember that the reality of evil implies the possibility of hell. If you reject good and evil you may as well be a materialist. And if only matter exists nothing matters!

 

[tonyrey]

If your specific God is real;

Forcing our existence and forcing us to take part in his forced scheme of salvation.

In other words what you are demanding from life is:

1. To be able to choose whether to be born or not.
2. To be able to do exactly what you like.

In other words you want to have **everything **your own way… How unrealistic can you get! No wonder you reject the idea of God! You want to be a god…

 

[buffalo]

There is no evidence to discount.

What??? Do you live in a cave?

 

[fhansen]

**Existence, in and of itself, as determined by God, is a “good”. We can object to that determination but, once existing, few if any really want to cease existing; tacitly agreeing, at least, that existence is good. And even those who’d wish to end their existence do so out of pain-the decision is an anguished one that results from physical or mental trials and runs counter to their natural inclinations. Otherwise we cling to and cherish our existence, whether or not we shake our fist at a God we may or may not claim to believe in.

And to anyone willing to make an objective observation, it should be clear that human freedom alone-another “good”-can lead to all kinds of evils (i.e., sin is real).

Now, if we allow that evil does exist, evil meaning unreasonable, unnecessary, willful, and harmful acts resulting from the will of beings who’re free to act against the will of a creator-god who’s deemed it good for such freedom to exist-IOW acts against nature itself, then we can also allow that such a God would have the right to oppose their will at a time when He’s deemed it appropriate to no longer let that kind of freedom reign.

And this opposition we call justice and this justice we call hell. We know very little about the concept of hell other than that it’s a “place” where anything that consciously, continuously, adamantly, willfully stands outside the order of the universe, i.e. anything set against the will of God, IOW anything unnatural; for example evils perpetrated against humans whose very suffering over the centuries constitute a cry for justice, is, finally, opposed.

And for all we know, anything “there” stills prefers it’s existence over the alternative.**

 

[timotheos]

In other words what you are demanding from life is:

1. To be able to choose whether to be born or not.
2. To be able to do exactly what you like.

In other words you want to have **everything **your own way… How unrealistic can you get! No wonder you reject the idea of God! You want to be a god…

I know of a young man and woman who were engaged to be married, but the young man backed out, for a variety of reasons. I had heard that one particular complaint of his was, “I did all of these things for you, and you never once thanked me.” To which she apparently replied, “Well, I never asked you to do them for me.” She was not at all happy over the breakup, but apparently not unhappy enough to consider the error of her perceptions, seek reconciliation, and look forward to marriage.

This thread is a bit like the young woman’s response, at least in the motivations to perceive oneself as independent, anyway. Pride, pride, pride. In this world of change, some things just stay the same.

 

[rvilbig]

If God is real, God forced me into existence. I didn’t have a choice in the matter.

I’ve been forced into existence, so that I may freely choose to reject him

My forced existence will have me languishing eternally in hell.

If God had not forced me into existence, I wouldn’t be able to reject him and I wouldn’t have to spend eternity suffering in hell.

God sounds rather selfish and cruel to me. Surely non existence would preferable to eternal torment?

Discuss.

The Catechism indeed teaches that our existence began without our consent. Paragraph 1847 quotes Saint Augustine’s 169th Sermon: “God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us.” (Sermon 169)

Nonetheless, it also the teaching of the Church that God created the world (and human souls) in mercy primarily, and secondarily in justice. From the Summa Theologica of Saint Thomas Aquinas: “[T]he work of divine justice always presupposes the work of mercy; and is founded thereupon. For nothing is due to creatures, except for something pre-existing in them, or foreknown. Again, if this is due to a creature, it must be due on account of something that precedes. And since we cannot go on to infinity, we must come to something that depends only on the goodness of the divine will–which is the ultimate end. We may say, for instance, that to possess hands is due to man on account of his rational soul; and his rational soul is due to him that he may be man; and his being man is on account of the divine goodness. So in every work of God, viewed at its primary source, there appears mercy.” (STh, I q. 21 a.4)

This was confirmed in Christ’s revelation to Saint Faustina, in entry 300 of her diary: “Mankind will not have peace until it turns with trust to My mercy. … My Heart rejoices in this title of Mercy. Proclaim that mercy is the greatest attribute of God. All the works of My hands are crowned with mercy.”

Finally, the Council of Trent affirmed that God will grant the necessary graces for the salvation of your soul: “God does not command impossibilities; but by commanding He admonishes you both to do what you can, and to ask for that which is beyond your power, and by His help enables you to do it” (Session 6, Cap. 11).

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any other questions.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I’ll try and summarize my version of this arguement:

1. God created us. It is impossible for us to protest creation since we aren’t there to protest yet, so no complaints there.
2. A person sees God’s plan of slavation and rejects it, asking if they could opt out.
3. God says, “Okay.” and makes them cease to exist.
4. This is simply a form of Hell, since Hell is the absence of God. Nonexistence of course does not include God, who exists.

5.However, not everybody has this choice. Only those who do not willfully do evil but merely reject both the chance to attain slavation and eternal torture. Those who do not reject the plan but instead sin knowing of the reality of Hell don’t have this option because God’s justice would have them punished.

Make sense?

This is merely a theological theory and could certainly have flaws or be wrong.

 

[tonyrey]

I’ll try and summarize my version of this arguement:

1. God created us. It is impossible for us to protest creation since we aren’t there to protest yet, so no complaints there.
2. A person sees God’s plan of salvation and rejects it, asking if they could opt out.

How could a person see God’s plan of salvation?

Why would a person choose to opt out of existence?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

How could a person see God’s plan of salvation?

Why would a person choose to opt out of existence?

True, I suppose I could be more specific. God told us what actions we should avoid and which we should not. He then showed us the consequences of these actions, whihc I called, incorrectly, his “plan of salvation”. A person would want to opt out because they dont like the rules God has set up and want to avoid eternal torture.

 

[tonyrey]

How could a person see God’s plan of salvation?

It is difficult to understand how every person in this world could be directly informed about how we should behave.

A person would want to opt out because they dont like the rules God has set up and want to avoid eternal torture.

The rules God has made are not arbitrary. Life is not set up as a test to determine whether we deserve to go to heaven or hell. Moral laws are simply laws for our proper development. Our virtues enhance and our vices degrade our personality. We go to heaven if we choose to live for others and to hell if we choose to live for ourselves. Hell has its compensations; otherwise no one would choose it! To have absolute freedom and power over oneself must be a source of great pleasure and satisfaction. Yet at the same time it is a source of misery because to worship oneself is to live in a fool’s paradise. How could we ever possibly be totally satisfied with ourselves when we are isolated from the love of our Father in heaven?

It is a form of insanity to want to disappear utterly because it implies that we derive absolutely no pleasure, satisfaction, happiness or fulfilment from anyone or anything. Those who commit suicide do so because they cannot obtain what they want, not because they have no desire for anything…

 

[slywakka250]

I…Hell has its compensations; otherwise no one would choose it! To have absolute freedom and power over oneself must be a source of great pleasure and satisfaction. Yet at the same time it is a source of misery because to worship oneself is to live in a fool’s paradise. How could we ever possibly be totally satisfied with ourselves when we are isolated from the love of our Father in heaven?

It is a form of insanity to want to disappear utterly because it implies that we derive absolutely no pleasure, satisfaction, happiness or fulfilment from anyone or anything. Those who commit suicide do so because they cannot obtain what they want, not because they have no desire for anything…

Hell does not have its compensations. No one will tolerate hell; those in hell are suffering pure torture for all eternity.

OK people seem to be arguing here that existence with the opportunity for eternal life with God is supremely good. And because existence is so good, it is illogical to wish that you had not existed.

But I do indeed wish that I had not come into existence. People here seem to be saying that choosing God is as simple as choosing what shirt to put on in the morning. Its not like that! Winning heaven requires you to respond to God’s grace many times in your lifetime, all the way up to your natural death, where you must pray for final perseverance, as the devil attacks your ferociously as you near death. Grace and love are not cheap. salvation is a war over you soul.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

dostoyevskyfan:

Additionally. Such a confession would be an imperfect one, albeit frowned on but tolerated. This too would need to be worked on which will call for an expected perfection to a love of God and the ideal confession.

Andy

Hi Andy, I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying, or I may be in error. I can’t tell either way from your short post.

We are talking hypothetically about an atheist going to confession, which is my recommendation to non-believers. It is an entirely rational suggestion to someone who admits to the possibility of an eternal hell, however small they may think it is, and wishes to avoid completely this possibility. Of course for this scenario to be possible to begin with, the atheist would have to smile and nod throughout RCIA, keeping their objections to themselves, and then eventually get baptized into the church.

If St.Thomas Aquinas is to be believed, then an atheist who seeks God and assumes an active role toward seeking God, then **God will reveal himself and his existence to that person either by natural or supernatural means. **

Seeking God and receiving the sacraments solely to avoid hell is, in and of itself imperfect and the wrong reason for seeking God; however, it is a logical reason, and is better than no reason and not seeking God. We cannot logically hold the position, at least from a theological perspective, that God will reject those who seek him for the wrong reasons. Scripture explicitly and incontrovertibly states the Christ will not reject anyone who comes to him. A just and merciful God will have pity on an atheist who admits that they are unable to believe in God but maintains the possibility of hell because they see so much injustice in the world. All atheists, even strong atheists, are philosophically agnostic; even the strict empiricist will admit that it is scientifically impossible to prove a negative.

I believe wholeheartedly that an atheist, upon baptism, will be given sufficient proof for the existence of God which will justify faith. Most likely the holy spirit will physically enter their body and give them the gift of faith, since faith in and of itself is a gift from God that not all are priveledged to.

From the standpoint of scripture, atheism is explained in the sense that the “god of this age” (in other words Satan) has blinded certain individuals to the truth. Forgive me for not having the chapter and verse memorized. Put bluntly, we believe that atheism exists because atheists are slaves to Satan. Of course, atheists will find this ridiculous. From the standpoint of pure pragmatism, it is ultimately irrelevant why atheism exists. What is relevant is that atheism exists, and atheists go to hell and are tortured for eternity.

In some cases, God may opt not to work immediately upon baptism, for reasons which are incomprehensible to us. God freely tests our commitment to Him unceasingly in this life.

Let’s assume for the sake of my argument that the atheist who was baptized does not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, the advocate promised by Christ from Christ after his crucifixion who will guide us to all matters of truth.

We now have a baptized atheist who attends mass every week and goes to confession beforehand.

Your assertion, Andy, is that this above individual’s confession is an imperfect one–“frowned upon but tolerated”. My question is…frowned upon by whom?

An imperfect confession is indistinguishable from a perfect one. If an atheist in the Catholic Church never admits to anyone that he is still an atheist, he is indistinguishable from a believer in the Catholic church. The confessor will never know the difference. Parishoners will not know the difference. The pope will not know the difference.

You might say, “well then it is frowned upon by God”, but the person giving the confession does not believe in God, and God, being omniscient, already knows this. It cannot therefore be an “imperfect confession”.

Furthermore, I’d argue that the baptized atheist could never fall into mortal sin. First off the baptized atheist doesn’t believe mortal sin exists, so in essence, in his mind, he is confessing non-existent sins to a non-existent God. Mortal sin requires full knowledge, full consent of the will, and grave matter. A baptized atheist has knowledge of sin via the catechism and RCIA, but no knowledge of God.

My recommendation is therefore a fail safe plan for an atheist to avoid hell. Many atheists will find it ridiculous in the same way that some people living in New Orleans thought having flood insurance was ridiculous. When hurricane Katrina hit them and flipped their world around, many of them changed their mind.

Andy, as for your other objection, I think I had the wrong choice of words. Of course hell is justified. It is logically necessary for Absolute Justice. I meant to say that, logically, it’s not worth it for anyone to pursue even the greatest pleasures of this world if they must suffer eternal damnation as a result.

 

[po18guy]

The Catholic Church does not teach nor believe that God enters into a series of discussions with prospective souls regarding the prospect of his willing them into existence.

Right you are. I was making only points to ponder.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Hell does not have its compensations. No one will tolerate hell; those in hell are suffering pure torture for all eternity.

OK people seem to be arguing here that existence with the opportunity for eternal life with God is supremely good. And because existence is so good, it is illogical to wish that you had not existed.

But I do indeed wish that I had not come into existence. People here seem to be saying that choosing God is as simple as choosing what shirt to put on in the morning. Its not like that! Winning heaven requires you to respond to God’s grace many times in your lifetime, all the way up to your natural death, where you must pray for final perseverance, as the devil attacks your ferociously as you near death. Grace and love are not cheap. salvation is a war over you soul.

This thread is filled with misconceptions about hell. No one in hell “enjoys” being there except the Devil and his angels. The Miltonian idea that a human being can “make a heaven out of hell, and a hell out of heaven” is a great delusion–hell is a place of immense suffering filled with the stench of sulfur and physical agony. I happen to be someone who believes in the personal revelations of St.Teresa of Avila and other saints who saw hell.

Secondly, many saints tell us that the majority of people who are currently in hell did not believe while they were alive that it existed.

Lastly, reason and logic dictate that the vast majority of people who came into existence will end up in hell. I could quote verse after verse from the Bible and saint after saint, I just don’t feel like it.

Slywakka’s understanding is orthodox.

This whole argument however, is flawed from the beginning. The belief that God is a “capricious, violent, unfair, unjust, tyrant who uses spiritual terrorism on people who had no say in their own existence”, while not held by me personally, *is *held by the Devil.

The argument is covertly posed as an argument for non-belief in the God of Abraham. Don’t be deceived. It isn’t an argument for atheism. It is an argument for Satanism, and a logically fallacious one at that. All it amounts to is an appeal to emotion, and an arbitrary moral value judgment.

Even if it were true that God is all of the above things (he is nothing of the sort and we have imperfect knowledge), it’s not a logically valid reason for non-belief in our God.

**If anything, it is a great argument for doing things that please God, to win his favor and avoid his wrath, and conforming to his divine will. ** No one would argue with someone who is holding a gun inside of your mouth and demanding all of the money in your wallet. No one would laud the person being robbed for saying to the robber, “You sir, are unjust. I therefore do not believe that you exist”, every rational human being would just label such a person an idiot.

Therefore, a synthesis of divine morality and human morality is impossible and foolish. Human secular morality is based on the survival of the species. That which propagates the human animal is labeled “good”. That which impedes our progress or that which is contrary to our nature is labeled “evil”. Because God’s morality is diametrically opposed to the natural inclinations and best interest of the species, God is labelled “Evil”. This fact, in and of itself, is a very strong argument for belief in the God of the New Testament.

I will now explain why our human morality and the majority of secular morality is flawed from a theological perspective. I will also explain why the OP believes God is “Evil or unjust”. Christ teaches us that only God alone is good. ("Why do you call me “good teacher” only God alone is good).

He also teaches us that every single human being is wicked. I will paraphrase God, “Even you who are wicked are capable of giving good gifts to your children. How much more will the Father in heaven, who alone is good, give good gifts to his children who ask of him”. That obviously isn’t exactly what Christ said, but most will be familiar with the verse.

A wicked person (all of us) can’t logically understand a Good God. It is in fact impossible. To a wicked person a Good and perfectly just God seems evil, because he is evil. So I hope now most of you will see that this whole thread is just a giant travesty of the concept of “Justice”.

 

[Betterave]

Your assertion, Andy, is that this above individual’s confession is an imperfect one–“frowned upon but tolerated”. My question is…frowned upon by whom?

An imperfect confession is indistinguishable from a perfect one. If an atheist in the Catholic Church never admits to anyone that he is still an atheist, he is indistinguishable from a believer in the Catholic church. The confessor will never know the difference. Parishoners will not know the difference. The pope will not know the difference.

You might say, “well then it is frowned upon by God”, but the person giving the confession does not believe in God, and God, being omniscient, already knows this. It cannot therefore be an “imperfect confession”.

Furthermore, I’d argue that the baptized atheist could never fall into mortal sin. First off the baptized atheist doesn’t believe mortal sin exists, so in essence, in his mind, he is confessing non-existent sins to a non-existent God. Mortal sin requires full knowledge, full consent of the will, and grave matter. A baptized atheist has knowledge of sin via the catechism and RCIA, but no knowledge of God.

My recommendation is therefore a fail safe plan for an atheist to avoid hell. Many atheists will find it ridiculous in the same way that some people living in New Orleans thought having flood insurance was ridiculous. When hurricane Katrina hit them and flipped their world around, many of them changed their mind.

Very interesting post. I can’t go along with the possibility of confessing sins that one believes are non-existent to a God that one believes is non-existent. What I like about Slywakka’s position is that he is being honest with/about God and I think this is good and important, even if there seem to be serious shortcomings in his understanding. One can fail to be *affectively *convicted about the existence and love of God and even have serious doubts, and still serve God; but if one has the minimal conviction that hell is possible and a loving God is possible, such that one is motivated to confess, it does not seem possible to genuinely really believe at the same time that God and sin *really *do not exist.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

I forgot to mention an important point that hopefully will shed new light on this subject.

1. God created the angels to be his servants.
2. God created human beings also to be his servants and to share in the suffering of Christ.
3. God did not create us for ourselves, but for Him.
4. Those who freely choose not to be His servants end up being servants of the self, or servants of Satan.
5. Since believers were created for God and for service to God, we do not belong to ourselves but to God.
6. Since we are property of God, we have no right to wish for non-existence or to wish that we were never born. Had we created ourselves, we would be entitled to that right.

 

[Betterave]

This thread is filled with misconceptions about hell. No one in hell “enjoys” being there except the Devil and his angels. The Miltonian idea that a human being can “make a heaven out of hell, and a hell out of heaven” is a great delusion–hell is a place of immense suffering filled with the stench of sulfur and physical agony. I happen to be someone who believes in the personal revelations of St.Teresa of Avila and other saints who saw hell.

Secondly, many saints tell us that the majority of people who are currently in hell did not believe while they were alive that it existed.

Some good points, but at the same time one-sided. There is no reason to think that the suffering of all who are in hell will be equally immense. There is good reason to think it will be fairly minimal in some cases, it seems to me. Also, Hans Urs von Balthasar believed that we could justifiably *hope *that no one would be damned, and while not really being in agreement with the main currents of the Church’s teaching tradition, I don’t think he can be called heterodox either.

Sartre’s No Exit isn’t exactly ‘orthodox,’ but it isn’t devoid of truth either, I suspect. Hell is other people and we get a pretty good preview of hell by looking at what people do to each other on earth.

This whole argument however, is flawed from the beginning. The belief that God is a “capricious, violent, unfair, unjust, tyrant who uses spiritual terrorism on people who had no say in their own existence”, while not held by me personally, *is *held by the Devil.

The argument is covertly posed as an argument for non-belief in the God of Abraham. Don’t be deceived. It isn’t an argument for atheism. It is an argument for Satanism, and a logically fallacious one at that. All it amounts to is an appeal to emotion, and an arbitrary moral value judgment.

Even if it were true that God is all of the above things (he is nothing of the sort and we have imperfect knowledge), it’s not a logically valid reason for non-belief in our God.

**If anything, it is a great argument for doing things that please God, to win his favor and avoid his wrath, and conforming to his divine will. ** No one would argue with someone who is holding a gun inside of your mouth and demanding all of the money in your wallet. No one would laud the person being robbed for saying to the robber, “You sir, are unjust. I therefore do not believe that you exist”, every rational human being would just label such a person an idiot.

Obvious problem here: the atheist is struggling with a concept already. He doesn’t know if there is any ‘gun’ and believes that if one is included in the God-concept being proposed to him, this inclusion makes the concept intrinsically more difficult to believe. There is no such dynamic of ‘credibility’ for the person being robbed.

Therefore, a synthesis of divine morality and human morality is impossible and foolish. Human secular morality is based on the survival of the species. That which propagates the human animal is labeled “good”. That which impedes our progress or that which is contrary to our nature is labeled “evil”. Because God’s morality is diametrically opposed to the natural inclinations and best interest of the species, God is labelled “Evil”. This fact, in and of itself, is a very strong argument for belief in the God of the New Testament.

You really lost me here. Your claim seems to be completely contrary to Catholic moral teaching, especially when we read your “natural” in the context of the tradition of a natural law approach to ethics.