Humans having children and Hell

[vz71]

I guess this is where the Catholic church and I disagree. I do not see people committing evil acts without compulsion as a matter made with full knowledge that hell will be the consequence . The church I understand believes it is possible.

God judges us perfectly.
And as I said, sin by sin.

Not every sin is a compulsion. But every sin is a sin.
And each makes it easier for the next…and the next…and the next.

It is fortunate that we have the sacraments to rely upon to help us break that cycle.

 

[tonyrey]

Without God right and wrong are merely human ideas…

If they are **merely **human ideas they are insignificant…

 

[Nimeniton]

God judges us perfectly.
And as I said, sin by sin.

Not every sin is a compulsion. But every sin is a sin.
And each makes it easier for the next…and the next…and the next.

It is fortunate that we have the sacraments to rely upon to help us break that cycle.

O indeed not every act of suffering we inflict on another is a compulsion. Sometimes it is done out of ignorance. And the church is quite right to advise one to avoid “the occasions of sin” It is a pity though that being in a position to take the sacraments daily seemed to have little effect on Fr O’Grady breaking his habit of pedophilia. No doubt he prayed for release, repented of his sin , discussed it with his superiors and tried therapy all to no avail. God did not answer his prayers nor did he protect his victims. At least he preserved Fr O Grady’s right to free will and no doubt this is of some comfort to Fr O’Grady’s victims.

 

[vz71]

O indeed not every act of suffering we inflict on another is a compulsion. Sometimes it is done out of ignorance.

You seem content to name out the exceptions. As though every possible sin has one. But that is not the case.
There are plenty of sins that we commit every day that we are fully responsible for.
People choose self over God everyday.
It makes about as much sense as someone holding there hand to a hot stove.
And yet it still happens.

It appears you are trying to hijack the thread into a discussion on pedophilia.

Is it your intent not to discuss the subject at hand in favor of pedophilia?
If so, please let me know now. I have no intention of discussing the topic and will excuse myself now.

 

[Nimeniton]

You seem content to name out the exceptions. As though every possible sin has one. But that is not the case.
There are plenty of sins that we commit every day that we are fully responsible for.
People choose self over God everyday.
It makes about as much sense as someone holding there hand to a hot stove.
And yet it still happens.

It appears you are trying to hijack the thread into a discussion on pedophilia.

Is it your intent not to discuss the subject at hand in favor of pedophilia?
If so, please let me know now. I have no intention of discussing the topic and will excuse myself now.

I deny the allegation that I am content to name out exceptions. I pointed out that I agreed with you that not all sins were the result of compulsive behaviour. I also deny the charge that I am trying to turn this into a discussion on pedophilia. The point of my last comments was a criticism of the effectiveness of the sacraments. I used Fr O’Grady as an example to show where they were ineffective and particularly so because the person involved was a priest and therefore had easy access to the sacraments.

If you had charged me with trying to undermine the doctrine of free will you would have been nearer the mark. I do not believe that Fr O’Grady acted out of free will and was being ironic to suggest he had. I was fully expecting you to point out a contradiction. But perhaps you saw my irony.

To turn the subject away from pedophilia. I would state that God allowing temptation into the world undermines the whole concept of free will. Temptation by its very nature is an act of deception. The deceived do not have full knowledge and act out of ignorance. That sin is impossible for a man to overcome by himself.

• 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.* Romans 3:23-24

In other words one does not have the free will not to sin but only the free will to call or not call on God’s grace. To emphasise free will is not in regard to sin but in calling upon God. But we can see that in some cases (sins of compulsion) at least God’s grace through the sacraments is ineffective. And as Catholics need frequent access to the sacraments as they repeatedly sin, one wonders about the sacraments effectiveness at all in ridding the world of sin.

In short if free will is limited to calling on God’s grace and if God does not provide it to those who call on him- then there is in effect no free will for that person. If there is no free will , how can a person be said to choose hell. Remember one’s hand is not on the stove until one is in hell. Prior to that one is just playing with fire. Perhaps I should make it clear that the “sticking one’s hand on the stove” is a metaphor for being in hell and not a metaphor for sin and its repetition. People therefore do not keeping putting their hand on the stove. They put it their once and find it stuck there for all eternity.

 

[vz71]

In short if free will is limited to calling on God’s grace and if God does not provide it to those who call on him- then there is in effect no free will for that person. If there is no free will , how can a person be said to choose hell.

God’s help is only there for the asking.
And there is more to asking then simple lip service.
For example…I can go to confession and confess a number of sins, but if I have no intention of avoiding the sin in the future, I have failed my responsibility.
I paid only lip service.
I also can go to confession with a sincere heart and resolve to ask God’s help in avoiding the sin. I can continue to pray God’s help and quite possibly succeed.

If I should fail, there is still the question of culpability. For I most certainly will not be held as accountable for a sin I am actively working to rid myself of then I would be a sin I willingly embrace.

Remember one’s hand is not on the stove until one is in hell. Prior to that one is just playing with fire. Perhaps I should make it clear that the “sticking one’s hand on the stove” is a metaphor for being in hell and not a metaphor for sin and its repetition. People therefore do not keeping putting their hand on the stove. They put it their once and find it stuck there for all eternity.

OK, but the same analogy works.
People play with fire every day. And continue to do so after being burned.
It does not make sense, but it does speak to the weakness of the human condition.
And it also speaks of the human condition that people find it difficult to hold onto the assistance God offers to us.

 

[Rickard]

Actually you do know the answers before you die. You are not being tested on your knowledge but on your actions. The thief knows it is wrong to steal but he does it anyway. If you did not know the answers you would not know how to act correctly.

Again why would you want anybody to choose the wrong thing? Surely you would want someone to choose the right thing. You might want someone (say your own child) to *avoid *doing the wrong thing but you would not deliberately test him with the wrong thing. You would not put some drugs in his room so he had the chance to commit wrong.

bible.cc/romans/7-15.htm. You are absolutely right that we are tested and judged by our actions, how well we follow what we know to be right (which is why God is especially merciful to the ignorant, yet it is not good that they should be ignorant) No saint ever became one based on what they knew, though of course knowing is the first step

I do not want anyone, including myself to choose the wrong thing, yet we do, and even when we know full well what we are doing is wrong (knowing is one of the three requirements for a sin to be mortal, which breaks our relationship with God though He is always ready to forgive) God neither wants us to sin, but as said before, if we did not have that option, we could not choose to obey or love.

With the drug entrance, it is important to remember that God made everything good, and that the devil is not a creative guy, literally. Satan cannot make anything, good or bad, all he can do is tempt us (quite well) to misuse the good things (though over or under use or misuse entirely) God made, disobeying and mocking God through creation instead of loving and glorifying Him in it. Using drugs is just using something in the wrong way for the wrong purpose.

In response to the empathetic response, absolutely. God knows we are weak and what all our failings and deficiencies are, and He did before He even made us. He is merciful and so we should be. There are definitely differing circumstances which would make one more or less culpable, but in all cases, we are to follow the saying, love the sinner, but hate the sin. As G.K. Chesterton points out, this sets Man free to both hate and love completely, detesting what is evil, and loving what is good

To call the sacraments ineffective because someone so close to them failed so horribly is like calling a laser guided rocket launcher ineffective because it didn’t hit the correct target. It is up to the receiver of the sacrament to be open to it. (terrible example but you get the idea i hope). The sacraments work of their own power, they ARE God’s grace as He wants to give it. Think of it as getting a present though. Though one receives a gift, unless one unwraps it, it’s not doing one much good, no matter how good it is, and then unless one uses it, applies it, it is still just an awesome present with the ability to save and give life should the recipient embrace it. God’s grace is sufficent for us to live sinless, and when we fail, it is sufficient to restore us.

Excellent analogy with the stove and playing with fire. Truly, heaven and hell’s effects begin even now (getting burned playing with fire, using it wrong). So interesting that God can have that paradox exist that getting burned accidentally while working with fire, or getting burned to death for faithfulness to Him can be a completely different thing. The same thing can both purify and destroy, and it is up to us what we’re made of, what kind of stuff we will be in this firey test. Will we hold on to impurities becoming soft and losing our shape seduced by the coy flames warm and exciting immediately not willing to give up our impurities, or will we let them burn off that we may endure the flames and shine as spotless crystal with matchless beauty, sure and strong for all eternity, (quick last note deciding WHO we will be is NOT the same as deciding WHAT makes us who we are as relativism states. we are human and we can decided between good and evil, not decide what is good and what is evil. Just wanted to add that disclaimer to head off misunderstanding right away.)

 

[Nimeniton]

God’s help is only there for the asking.
And there is more to asking then simple lip service.
.

I was not including lip service in my claims that the sacraments are ineffective in ridding the world of sin. The example I used showed struggle.
vz71;7315786OK:

, but the same analogy works.
People play with fire every day. And continue to do so after being burned.
It does not make sense, but it does speak to the weakness of the human condition.
And it also speaks of the human condition that people find it difficult to hold onto the assistance God offers to us.

If people are weak that again limits their free will because strength is needed to act effectively. One would not blame a two year old because it was too weak to lift heavy weight. Also the fact that people find it “difficult” to hold onto the assistance of God also points to a lack of free will simply because forgetfulness removes the ability to act with full knowledge

 

[Nimeniton]

bible.cc/romans/7-15.htm.

To call the sacraments ineffective because someone so close to them failed so horribly is like calling a laser guided rocket launcher ineffective because it didn’t hit the correct target. It is up to the receiver of the sacrament to be open to it. (terrible example but you get the idea i hope). The sacraments work of their own power, they ARE God’s grace as He wants to give it. Think of it as getting a present though. Though one receives a gift, unless one unwraps it, it’s not doing one much good, no matter how good it is, and then unless one uses it, applies it, it is still just an awesome present with the ability to save and give life should the recipient embrace it. God’s grace is sufficent for us to live sinless, and when we fail, it is sufficient to restore us.

Thank you for your long and thoughtful reply. I certainly was not arguing that one exception undermined the Catholic claim that the sacraments were effective. I believe I questioned their effectiveness universally on the basis that Catholics have to take the sacraments repeatedly and still sin. When they do seem to fail the Catholic argument is usually that it is the man’s fault. He did not have the right attitude or whatever.

Perhaps a study need to be done to see just how effective the sacraments are in changing people. (it would have to be limited to sins that all groups agreed were wrong i.e lying, cheating, gossiping, stealing etc)

1. Only people who were seriously trying could be included in the study.
2. There would be a group not taking the sacraments i.e Jews, Buddhists etc

Then the two groups could be compared to see if Catholics sinned less and /or became more virtuous than the group who did not take the sacraments.

Some account would have to be taken into other things that help people to change such as

1. Positive supportive social networks
2. Practical methods

and I am sure others that I have not considered.

It would be a difficult thing to study but not necessarily impossible.

 

[gkoomen]

We’ve sure drifted a long way from the original question, which was NOT about whether the sacraments are effective. When it comes to the Eucharist, we have Jesus’ own words in the latter half of John 6. But we WERE talking about having children, knowing they might go to hell; and whether this was right. I have a 40 year old child who has left her faith behind, as other things are more important to her. I tremble for her. I pray for her. But I do not wish I had never had her.

 

[vz71]

I was not including lip service in my claims that the sacraments are ineffective in ridding the world of sin. The example I used showed struggle.

No one claimed there would not be a struggle.
Nor did anyone claim there was no possibility of failure.
Lip service does not refer to a general failure, it refers to a failure to be faithful on your end.

If people are weak that again limits their free will because strength is needed to act effectively. One would not blame a two year old because it was too weak to lift heavy weight.

No, but we can be blamed for not asking for help.
Free will is not an issue here. Weak or not we still have plenty of options available.

Also the fact that people find it “difficult” to hold onto the assistance of God also points to a lack of free will simply because forgetfulness removes the ability to act with full knowledge

You mean someone would forget they are sinning?
Or that they would forget a given action is sinful?

 

[vz71]

Thank you for your long and thoughtful reply. I certainly was not arguing that one exception undermined the Catholic claim that the sacraments were effective. I believe I questioned their effectiveness universally on the basis that Catholics have to take the sacraments repeatedly and still sin. When they do seem to fail the Catholic argument is usually that it is the man’s fault. He did not have the right attitude or whatever.

Can you actually come up with a specific sinful behavior that is not the result of a failure in man?
Even the compulsion you speak of had a beginning that was started freely by one man. Compulsion may drive him later, but yielding freely to temptation started the ball rolling.

Perhaps a study need to be done to see just how effective the sacraments are in changing people. (it would have to be limited to sins that all groups agreed were wrong i.e lying, cheating, gossiping, stealing etc)…
It would be a difficult thing to study but not necessarily impossible.

How exactly would you propose to discern a change due to prayer?
Do you really believe it possible to measure the actions of God?

 

[vz71]

We’ve sure drifted a long way from the original question, which was NOT about whether the sacraments are effective. When it comes to the Eucharist, we have Jesus’ own words in the latter half of John 6. But we WERE talking about having children, knowing they might go to hell; and whether this was right. I have a 40 year old child who has left her faith behind, as other things are more important to her. I tremble for her. I pray for her. But I do not wish I had never had her.

Could it be said that the freedom to make the choice is more important then the choice itself?

 

[Nimeniton]

Can you actually come up with a specific sinful behavior that is not the result of a failure in man?
Even the compulsion you speak of had a beginning that was started freely by one man. Compulsion may drive him later, but yielding freely to temptation started the ball rolling.

The fact that he yielded to tempt

The fact that they yielded to temptation shows a delusion was present and that they did not act with free will.

i.e

1. God won’t mind this little thing.
2. Tomorrow , I can go to confession (assumes wrongly that he can predict his life span).
3. This temptation is too strong for me.
4. A loving God would never send me to hell. etc.

From a Catholic perspective, all these are not true and delusional. One is not acting with full knowledge if one is in a delusional state. Therefore, no free will.

How exactly would you propose to discern a change due to prayer?
Do you really believe it possible to measure the actions of God?

Well, I was specifically talking about the sacraments but in answer to your question - YES. At least as far as external actions are concerned. And the internal should at least manifest in the external.

James 2:17
In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

If you had a thousand sincere Catholics and a thousand sincere Buddhists who were coming off recreational drugs and the sacrament receiving Catholics stayed off longer and in greater numbers than the Buddhists that would certainly convince me of the effectiveness of the sacraments, everything else remaining equal. If that sounds too extreme, we could check their tax returns over 20 years for honesty. There are lots of very specific things that can be tested. I know you are not supposed to test the Lord thy God, but a successful study could really bring the converts in.

 

[Nimeniton]

No, but we can be blamed for not asking for help.
Free will is not an issue here. Weak or not we still have plenty of options available.

Well you would have to ask why they did not ask for help.

Did they not ask for help because

1. They believe they can do it by themselves.
2. They don’t believe God will answer and/or forgive them.

These are delusional thoughts from a Catholic perspective. A choice based on honest belief in a falsehood is not free will. So no, you cannot be blamed for not asking for help.

 

[vz71]

The fact that he yielded to tempt

The fact that they yielded to temptation shows a delusion was present and that they did not act with free will.

Sorry, but you are mistaken there.
The very act of yielding to temptation is an act of free will.

From a Catholic perspective, all these are not true and delusional. One is not acting with full knowledge if one is in a delusional state. Therefore, no free will.

Free will does not depend upon full disclosure.
You can freely choose any action wether or not you know the full consequences.
What you describe is a qualifier for culpability. The sin is still a sin.

Well, I was specifically talking about the sacraments but in answer to your question - YES. At least as far as external actions are concerned. And the internal should at least manifest in the external.

James 2:17
In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

You are assuming God will act in a predictable way and the results will be predictable as well.
As one who is witness to God’s creation, I can asure you that God’s answers to prayer are unpredictable.

 

[vz71]

These are delusional thoughts from a Catholic perspective. A choice based on honest belief in a falsehood is not free will. So no, you cannot be blamed for not asking for help.

Again, you describe culpability.
The very word choice shows us the fact of free will.

Else there is simply no choice.

 

[Nimeniton]

We’ve sure drifted a long way from the original question, which was NOT about whether the sacraments are effective. When it comes to the Eucharist, we have Jesus’ own words in the latter half of John 6. But we WERE talking about having children, knowing they might go to hell; and whether this was right. I have a 40 year old child who has left her faith behind, as other things are more important to her. I tremble for her. I pray for her. But I do not wish I had never had her.

Indeed we have. Let’s get back to it. Your child may leave the church unrepentant and be sent/send herself to hell. I am in exactly the same predicament as she is. Killing her in infancy? There is no question that the Catholic church considers it wrong. It would probably be considered a mortal sin if done in defiance of church teaching. So really there is nothing further to debate on that front. As to whether the murdered child would have gone to heaven. Well, if she was baptised that is guaranteed. So again there is no further need for debate on the subject. As to whether God would prevent someone from carrying out such a murder with the intent of saving the child, it seems not as God does not interfere with people’s free will. So really there is nothing further to argue about.

However, the price for murdering the child is very high. And even if it was not for fear of hell but out of natural attachment to your daughter that you allowed her to live to the point of jeopardising her salvation; this latter attachment really has nothing to do with leading the Christian life

Luke 14:26
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

If however, it can be shown there is no free will, then it can be shown that no one is culpable of sin.So technically you could not go to hell for the murder of the child. But as the child would not go to hell either there would be no point in killing the child. You may as well let her live and enjoy that natural attachment.

 

[Nimeniton]

Again, you describe culpability.
The very word choice shows us the fact of free will.

Else there is simply no choice.

You are under the impression that making a choice and free will are one and the same. They are not. A toddler can make choices but that does not mean it has free will. Why not ? Because it lacks the rational faculty. So the toddler chooses to hit his new baby brother even after his mother told him not to. - Is he culpable? Is the church wrong to say he has no free will? Yet he still made a choice.

Choice based on a delusion is not free will. Let me give you an example, the Nigerian 419 scam. Someone receives a letter saying that they are the beneficiary of a huge inheritance, several million dollars. The only snag is they need to send a cheque for a thousand dollars. So they do. So they have two choices, send the money or not send the money. Now they are not going to send the money if they believe that it is a scam are they? So they have to be in a state of delusion to send the money. What is full knowledge here? That it is a scam. Do they have that full knowledge? No. So no free will.

 

[vz71]

You are under the impression that making a choice and free will are one and the same. They are not. A toddler can make choices but that does not mean it has free will. Why not ? Because it lacks the rational faculty.

So you are arguing that lack of full knowledge is equal to diminished capacity?