Humans having children and Hell

[geekborj]

Why should humans choose to have children if there’s a possibility their child will choose Hell?
If existence in Hell (for a human) is worse than not being born at all (sorry if I’m understanding that wrong) isn’t it better for humans to choose not to have children at all?

Thanks in advance for any help received in answering my questions.

While your argument is correct, i think there is a wrong emphasis here. Why not have children and then dwell on the possibility that they will choose Heaven? Would that be an additional good person, further glorifying God, the Source of Everything Good?

Moreover, choosing to have children is a noble decision because it accepts all the responsibility of teaching them to choose Heaven over Hell. This is indeed a participation in the life of God being a Father and the Church, the Body of Christ, being a Mother.

 

[sedonaman]

Why should humans choose to have children if there’s a possibility their child will choose Hell?
If existence in Hell (for a human) is worse than not being born at all (sorry if I’m understanding that wrong) isn’t it better for humans to choose not to have children at all?

…

I asked a similar question of a priest once, i.e., why bother to try living a holy life if there was a chance of going to hell anyway? He said such an attitude was despair, the ultimate sin.

 

[JDaniel]

Why should humans choose to have children if there’s a possibility their child will choose Hell?
If existence in Hell (for a human) is worse than not being born at all (sorry if I’m understanding that wrong) isn’t it better for humans to choose not to have children at all?

Thanks in advance for any help received in answering my questions.

Why should I eat this delicious smelling forkful of steak if there’s a chance that I may choke to death on it?

God bless,
jd

 

[John_Pascendi]

Why should humans choose to have children if there’s a possibility their child will choose Hell?
If existence in Hell (for a human) is worse than not being born at all (sorry if I’m understanding that wrong) isn’t it better for humans to choose not to have children at all?

Thanks in advance for any help received in answering my questions.

When one wakes up in the morning it is possible one may become squashed by a huge truck or a safe falling on his head or even getting that certain look teens give …so what! As one saying goes…better to love and lost then to never have loved at all. Life is all risk taking except for certain public servents who can lie and cheat and steal and get away with it…for most of we average folks…we pay and thats how it is with having kids.One wonders how many scientists and doctors were never born but aborted,who may have found a cure for cancer,diabetes ,aids etc…take you turn at bat and take a swing,dont walk…

 

[gkoomen]

I have wanted to ask a similar question for years. I was Protestant for most of my life. (My conversion to Catholicism is the best decision I ever made!) I was taught that aborted children go to heaven. it sounded like aborting them was a kindness as they didn’t risk hell. This conclusion is unacceptable to me. But how does one refute it? I can’t do an adequate job - can any of you?

 

[davidv]

I have wanted to ask a similar question for years. I was Protestant for most of my life. (My conversion to Catholicism is the best decision I ever made!) I was taught that aborted children go to heaven. it sounded like aborting them was a kindness as they didn’t risk hell. This conclusion is unacceptable to me. But how does one refute it? I can’t do an adequate job - can any of you?

I believe the ultimate answer is Love. If one is not alive, one cannot love. To love is to perfect life, to become holy.

 

[Nimeniton]

You have no assurance you are in fact doing any such thing. The ability remains for the person to have a full life and still have a harmonious unbroken relationship with him at the time of death without such actions on your part. If you have done anything, you have done something not appointed to you to do. And, you still end up in jail. You say you would find that worth it now, but if you had time to re-think your position you would most certainly see the flaws. After all, you would have a lot of time and unpleasantries to do just that.

Well actually there is an assurance that children who have been baptised and die before the age of free will will go to heaven. The fact that the person has done something forbidden by the divine will is neither here nor there as far as the child’s destination is concerned. It goes to heaven and the perpretator goes to hell.

On the Beatific Vision of God
Benedictus Deus
Constitution issued by Pope Benedict XII in 1336

By this Constitution which is to remain in force for ever, we, with apostolic authority, define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints who departed from this world before the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and also of the holy apostles, martyrs, confessors, virgins and other faithful who died after receiving the holy baptism of Christ- provided they were not in need of any purification when they died, or will not be in need of any when they die in the future, or else, if they then needed or will need some purification, after they have been purified after death-and again the souls of children who have been reborn by the same baptism of Christ or will be when baptism is conferred on them, if they die before attaining the use of free will: all these souls, immediately (mox) after death and, in the case of those in need of purification, after the purification mentioned above, since the ascension of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ into heaven, already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment, have been, are and will be with Christ in heaven, in the heavenly kingdom and paradise, joined to the company of the holy angels….

Also the chances of going to hell are far higher than catching chicken pox from eating cornflakes. How many people do you know who fall into the following categories.

1 Corinthians 6:8-10 (New International Version)

8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

 

[davidv]

Well actually there is an assurance that children who have been baptised and die before the age of free will will go to heaven. The fact that the person has done something forbidden by the divine will is neither here nor there as far as the child’s destination is concerned. It goes to heaven and the perpretator goes to hell.

Also the chances of going to hell are far higher than catching chicken pox from eating cornflakes. How many people do you know who fall into the following categories.

Going to hell is not a probability problem. One does not get there by accident. It is the result of deliberate choice to love self instead of others.

 

[Nimeniton]

Going to hell is not a probability problem. One does not get there by accident. It is the result of deliberate choice to love self instead of others.

I hardly think probability was the main thrust of my argument. And probabilty does not contradict free will. An employer may plan for a number of false sick claims. He would be wise to do so. This does not deny the fact that people consciously chose to lie about being sick. In the same way as people end up in prison through their own deliberate actions so also it is possible to look at statistics and estimate the chances of a person ending up there. The two do not contradict. Likewise one can look at the probability of people going to hell based on the number of people who choose to commit actions that will take them to hell. Are you greedy, do you have homosexual sex; have you had sex outside marriage; etc; etc. I think you will agree that both within and outside the catholic church there is quite a high failure rate.

Of course some would argue there is no free will but I am trying to stay within catholic belief.

 

[Rickard]

In response to the original question, I asked the same thing once and it took an hour to for me to understand the explanation, but it really is quite simple.

Hell exists, people do go there, and God does make those people knowing they will go there because he is omniscient. This isn’t predestination however because the fact that God knows what we will choose doesn’t affect the fact that we are the ones who make the choice and thus experience the consequences.

If there were no option but heaven, we would have no free will because we would have no capacity to choose between God and anything else, there would be no love because we could not choose to love God above all else including ourselves. We would be animals, devoid of free will like robots, only naturally acting according to our nature. But we are human, with souls, who God has made like Himself to love and be loved by Him forever in heaven. But in order to love, we must choose to love Him above all else, and sacrifice just as he did and does for the sake of the beloved.

So in a strange sounding way, hell exists because God loves us; and respects the free wills he gave us too much to take them away. We should cease to be human if He did. God sends no one to hell, he wants all to be in heaven with Him, people choose to go to hell rather than give up their disordered loves for things less than God. Thank God for purgatory for those who are trying to love God purely, but aren’t perfect yet.

 

[felsguy]

Oops, almost inadvertently hijacked this thread…misread the title as “Having children is hell”

 

[Nimeniton]

In response to the original question, I asked the same thing once and it took an hour to for me to understand the explanation, but it really is quite simple.

Hell exists, people do go there, and God does make those people knowing they will go there because he is omniscient. This isn’t predestination however because the fact that God knows what we will choose doesn’t affect the fact that we are the ones who make the choice and thus experience the consequences.

If there were no option but heaven, we would have no free will because we would have no capacity to choose between God and anything else, there would be no love because we could not choose to love God above all else including ourselves. We would be animals, devoid of free will like robots, only naturally acting according to our nature. But we are human, with souls, who God has made like Himself to love and be loved by Him forever in heaven. But in order to love, we must choose to love Him above all else, and sacrifice just as he did and does for the sake of the beloved.

So in a strange sounding way, hell exists because God loves us; and respects the free wills he gave us too much to take them away. We should cease to be human if He did. God sends no one to hell, he wants all to be in heaven with Him, people choose to go to hell rather than give up their disordered loves for things less than God. Thank God for purgatory for those who are trying to love God purely, but aren’t perfect yet.

Paragraph 1

The argument here is that God knows who is going to hell and he knows how they will use their free will. This still means that he allows people to be born knowing they will suffer eternally and is quite happy about that. Not only that but he believes it is preferable for someone to be born and cause others harm than that they not be born and the person spared from the attack. The free will and punishment of the person bound for hell is more important than saving your child from the torments of a serial killer. Free will is valued more highly than compassion.

Paragraph 2

Whilst awareness of choices and free will are connected they are not the same thing For example you are aware that there is a choice between sleep and staying awake. If , for the sake of argument the right thing is to stay awake for a week but the person falls asleep after 72 hours, this does not mean that the person was not aware of the choice between sleep and staying awake even though he can hardly be blamed for falling asleep. So awareness of choices and free will is not the same thing. One can be aware of choices but not have the free will to act.

We should also be aware that animals make choices and are not robots. Put two new foods in front of a cat and watch it sniff both before choosing one. An animal can make a choice.

The issue of free will can also be looked at from another perspective and that is from the view of mental health. To have free will we need knowledge in order to make the right choice. Who in their right mind would deliberately make a choice that would mean they were tortured for all eternity. That would not be the action of a sane person. And an insane person is not considered responsible for their own actions.

If a person truly believes in hell but constantly finds himself succumbing to temptation what does this mean? It means he finds the temptations stronger than him or he is temporarily deluded. So how can we say in either case that such a person acted with free will. Compulsion and delusion are neither components of free will.

Paragraph 3

This introduces the modern idea that God sends no one to hell. This always brings to my mind an image of all the murderers and thieves voluntarily walking into prison and insisting on staying there. We can then dismiss the police and prison staff. But , of course, we know that most are there because the police caught them and the prison staff make sure that they do not escape.

Also the view that God is not responsible for throwing people into hell is not biblical. It will be this way at the end of the age. Angels will come and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 13:49-50. This makes it quite clear that the sinner does not choose his punishment. The logic seems to confuse committing a wrong and deserving a punishment with committing a wrong and choosing to be punished.

 

[gkoomen]

I can accept that God gives a choice out of love for us, and that not all will make the choice that leads to Heaven. But why eternal torture? I find it hard to see that as an expression of God’s love. Why not simple exclusion? Destruction would be more merciful. If Jesus had not come, the entire human race would have ended in hell. I have been taught that if we don’t choose God, then by default we choose satan, and he becomes our lord instead of Jesus; so we spend eternity with him. I would prefer never to have existed! And I raise again the issue of the aborted child who definitely doesn’t go to hell. Doesn’t that make the abortion a blessing for that child? That cannot be! And Hitler was once a cute little baby. if his mother had murdered him in his cradle she would have done the world a great service, wouldn’t she? how could she be condemned for saving millions of lives/

 

[LouisH]

We are not to do evil to bring about good. However, in this case we in a way are thinking very abstractly. The baptized baby would go to heaven. The baby is not the only person affected. What about the parents of the baby and the brothers and sisters, grandparents and other relatives? How about when the “act of love” gives them feelings of pain and sufferings they will experience for the rest of their lives? I have personally seen marriages destroyed and families torn apart.I remember one horrible occasion at the funeral of a very young child who died from a congenital condition. Everyone was completely distraught and the young son of the family kept crying out, "It should have me! It should have been me!"I can not even imagine the pain would cause to have their baby killed by someone supposedly acting “out of love for the baby.” Whenever we think we are doing good out of love when are being fooled; evil brings about evil. I think that if you ever had the experience of knowing people who have suffered so much from the death of their children you would not ask the question.

 

[Nimeniton]

We are not to do evil to bring about good. However, in this case we in a way are thinking very abstractly. The baptized baby would go to heaven. The baby is not the only person affected. What about the parents of the baby and the brothers and sisters, grandparents and other relatives? How about when the “act of love” gives them feelings of pain and sufferings they will experience for the rest of their lives? I have personally seen marriages destroyed and families torn apart.I remember one horrible occasion at the funeral of a very young child who died from a congenital condition. Everyone was completely distraught and the young son of the family kept crying out, "It should have me! It should have been me!"I can not even imagine the pain would cause to have their baby killed by someone supposedly acting “out of love for the baby.” Whenever we think we are doing good out of love when are being fooled; evil brings about evil. I think that if you ever had the experience of knowing people who have suffered so much from the death of their children you would not ask the question.

I do not think anyone is seriously arguing that one should kill babies to get them into heaven. And I certainly agree that the consequences are tragic.

However, it is is a perfectly valid conclusion to draw from Catholic beliefs that the child would be better killed and guaranteed a place in heaven because heaven is the ultimate good. Indeed when anyone we are attached to dies we experience suffering but if we really believed the child was in heaven , enjoying the highest pleasure, should we not be happy. Why be sad? Now there is no chance of them using their free will later in life to choose hell. Isn’t that wonderful?

Let us look at a similar situation but where the perpetrator is not a human being but God himself. God creates the Tsunami, children are ripped away from their parents, loved ones are parted, some swallow water and drown , some have their heads dashed against the rocks. Afterwards the psychologists treat the survivors for post traumatic symptoms disorder. What do Catholics say? After they put aside their grief, they say that the deceased is in a better place. They particularly say that of a child. And they say that God had a special purpose for the child and also that he is sending this suffering so that the surviving sufferer can benefit “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” Isaiah 45:7.

So what is the moral difference?

Motive: to protect the child from going to hell
Child is killed.
Child is guaranteed heaven - no longer a chance of being sent to hell
Parents suffer and are given opportunity to learn valuable lesson

There is a difference in that God does not go to hell for causing all that suffering but the human perpetrator does. But that is not a difference of morality but a difference in terms of who has power. Also God often kills infants to punish the sins of the parents. Remember punishment of the perpetrator is more important than compassion to the infant.

Psalm 137:8-9 (New International Version)
8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is the one who repays you
according to what you have done to us.
9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.

Of course if you do not believe in heaven the killing of a child is a terrible thing. You will never see them again. There will be no future life. If you really get no pleasure in a child dieing and going to heaven regardless of how then perhaps deep down you do not really believe in heaven.

 

[Rickard]

It is essential to have an understanding of the definitions of heaven and hell. Heaven is eternity with God and it is an eternity of bliss because simply being with God will super-abundantly fulfill all that we need and desire

Hell is an eternity without God, so chosen by choosing anything other than God or refusing to let it go in order to embrace nothing but Him and trusting in it rather than in Him (who made both you and whatever the attachment is) for one’s happiness.

All sin (which is choosing to disobey or not choose God in some way one should) is deserving of punishment, namely death, but God has not abandoned us, though His Justice is perfect, His mercy is greater in that He Himself satisfied it, forgiving all sin. what’s left for us to do is to accept that forgiveness with a humble penitent heart, trusting in that mercy.

No sin is unforgivable but sins against the spirit, or final impenitence. To die having sinned mortally thus separating oneself from God and denying all the many graces and chances He gives to remit and fall on His infinite mercy is to choose to die ‘right’, to die forever because one would not admit one was wrong, God is God and God was right. Purgatory purges the lingering attachments of sins that are not mortal and must be cleansed before we can bear to be with God (nothing impure will enter heaven). It would be like showing up to the best party in the world, horribly dressed, only infinitely worse.

Now no one but God can know a persons soul and where it is headed, (He reveals to us that the saints are in heaven by allowing miracles through their intercession), so we ought to trust in His mercy and imitate it, being merciful to others praying for our enemies, as Fr. Larry Richards said, “that they will sit next to you forever at the banquet” for God desires everyone to be in heaven, otherwise He would not have made them. But though God is all powerful and all loving, and can do all things, making someone love you is not a thing, forced love is a non thing, the two are mutually exclusive. Therefore, if someone chooses to die in their sins unrepentant (and we can’t know who, God can supply great graces an instant before death and He loves more than we can imagine.) God respects that decision for to do otherwise would be to destroy all he had made out of love.

As for children who die before birth or at an early age, we trust in and pray for God’s mercy, confident that even the unbaptised may enter heaven somehow because they had no opportunity.

 

[gkoomen]

I understand and agree with all that you say, Rickard; but why must those who do not choose Heaven be eternally tortured, rather than just being destroyed or left in some place without joy, but without torture too. God makes the rules - he could do this.

 

[vz71]

Why should humans choose to have children if there’s a possibility their child will choose Hell?

Because having the choice is more important then the possibility of choosing badly.

why must those who do not choose Heaven be eternally tortured, rather than just being destroyed or left in some place without joy, but without torture too.

Hell is the complete abscence of God.
Torture is simply the condition of existing without God. The poor souls there suffer in a complete and eternal despair over their choice to be away from God forever.
If I pull a fish out of water and set it on the shore, it will suffer and eventually die.
Now consider what would happen if this fish were immortal, could never die, but was eternally out of water and suffering for it.

We were made to be with God.
We were also made immortal.
When we die, we choose either to be with God forever or to be without God.
If we choose to be without, we will suffer for it. And since we are immortal, this suffering will go on through eternity.
It is a torture of our own making.
It is God honoring our free will.

 

[davidv]

I do not think anyone is seriously arguing that one should kill babies to get them into heaven. And I certainly agree that the consequences are tragic.

However, it is is a perfectly valid conclusion to draw from Catholic beliefs that the child would be better killed and guaranteed a place in heaven because heaven is the ultimate good. Indeed when anyone we are attached to dies we experience suffering but if we really believed the child was in heaven , enjoying the highest pleasure, should we not be happy. Why be sad? Now there is no chance of them using their free will later in life to choose hell. Isn’t that wonderful?

How can anyone possibly consider this a rational, valid, position. I think you left out, “do not murder” in coming to this conclusion. So apparently you are not using Catholic beliefs, but so truncated private version, to get to this conclusion.

Let us look at a similar situation but where the perpetrator is not a human being but God himself. God creates the Tsunami, children are ripped away from their parents, loved ones are parted, some swallow water and drown , some have their heads dashed against the rocks. Afterwards the psychologists treat the survivors for post traumatic symptoms disorder. What do Catholics say? After they put aside their grief, they say that the deceased is in a better place. They particularly say that of a child. And they say that God had a special purpose for the child and also that he is sending this suffering so that the surviving sufferer can benefit “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” Isaiah 45:7.

So what is the moral difference?

Motive: to protect the child from going to hell
Child is killed.
Child is guaranteed heaven - no longer a chance of being sent to hell
Parents suffer and are given opportunity to learn valuable lesson

There is a difference in that God does not go to hell for causing all that suffering but the human perpetrator does. But that is not a difference of morality but a difference in terms of who has power. Also God often kills infants to punish the sins of the parents. Remember punishment of the perpetrator is more important than compassion to the infant.

Psalm 137:8-9 (New International Version)
*8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, *
*happy is the one who repays you *
*according to what you have done to us. *
*9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants *
and dashes them against the rocks.

Of course if you do not believe in heaven the killing of a child is a terrible thing. You will never see them again. There will be no future life. If you really get no pleasure in a child dieing and going to heaven regardless of how then perhaps deep down you do not really believe in heaven.

 

[Nimeniton]

I…

No sin is unforgivable but sins against the spirit, or final impenitence. To die having sinned mortally thus separating oneself from God and denying all the many graces and chances He gives to remit and fall on His infinite mercy is to choose to die ‘right’, to die forever because one would not admit one was wrong, God is God and God was right. .

How can there be final impenitence within the sphere of eternity. In eternity there is no final impenitence. There is always more opportunities to forgive and to love. Finally the idea that any sane person would willingly choose eternal suffering is absurd. It would be and can only be the act of an insane man. What sane man does not want relief from his suffering? In fact what insane man would not desire this?