Humans having children and Hell

[davidv]

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.

O really? How is a choice possible if there is no rational capacity. Making a choice involves considering a number of options, with our reasoning ability (rational capacity) and deciding, which one, or more of those options is chosen.

So the toddler chooses to hit his new baby brother even after his mother told him not to. - Is he culpable?

Yes. In my house, he would get punished (at an age appropriate level) for disobedience.

Is the church wrong to say he has no free will?

Where does the Church does say the child has no free will.

Yet he still made a choice.

Choice based on a delusion is not free will.

It may be a poorly informed choice, but it is a choice nonetheless. There your conclusion (no free will) does not follow and is not valid.

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.

All this demostrates is gullibility. Was any of the “victims” forced to send money. And even if they were, they could have been willing not to.

 

[Nimeniton]

O really? How is a choice possible if there is no rational capacity. Making a choice involves considering a number of options, with our reasoning ability (rational capacity) and deciding, which one, or more of those options is chosen.

Ask the bee that sticks only to specific flowers and ignores others. Perhaps you would like to argue that God gave them free will too. You do not need reason to make choices.

Yes. In my house, he would get punished (at an age appropriate level) for disobedience.

People correct their dogs but it is not claimed they have free will. Are you saying that God has given dogs free will?

Where does the Church does say the child has no free will.

“…*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….” Constitution issued by Pope Benedict XII in 1336

It may be a poorly informed choice, but it is a choice nonetheless. There your conclusion (no free will) does not follow and is not valid.

All this demostrates is gullibility. Was any of the “victims” forced to send money. And even if they were, they could have been willing not to.

Gullibility is based on delusional/wishful thinking. With the correct facts available another decision would have been made. There is nothing free in man suffering from delusion. He is a victim of a deception.

 

[vz71]

Ask the bee that sticks only to specific flowers and ignores others. Perhaps you would like to argue that God gave them free will too. You do not need reason to make choices.

Interesting.
Is it your contention that we can discern the thoughts of the bee as it chooses one set of flowers over another.
How did you come upon this knowledge?

People correct their dogs but it is not claimed they have free will. Are you saying that God has given dogs free will?

Dog’s do not have immortal souls as we do.
They do not have a choice of being with God forever or not.

“…*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….” Constitution issued by Pope Benedict XII in 1336

Quite.
The children have been Baptised based upon the will and pledge of the parents to raise them to know and serve God.
They do not choose this, the parents do.

Gullibility is based on delusional/wishful thinking. With the correct facts available another decision would have been made. There is nothing free in man suffering from delusion. He is a victim of a deception.

You believe another decision would be made.
But we really do not know if that would be the case.
They are still faced with exactly the same decision as before.
The change is not in the decision or even the ability to make a decision.
The change is the information known. They are still free to send whatever money they wish.

 

[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.

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

 

[Nimeniton]

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

No I am not. I am saying that if you do not have full knowledge , you cannot make an informed decision. You may well have the capacity to make an informed decision but that is not of much use to you if you do not have full knowledge. You will still make a wrong decision.

For example St Paul has full capacity. He obviously wants slaves to be treated well and in one case wants Onesimus to be freed. But he respects Philemon’s right to own Onesimus and so returns him to Philemon and his request to free Onesimus is seeking Philemon’s consent and acknowledging his property rights… St Paul has full capacity when making this decision but lacks the knowledge that keeping a human as property is morally wrong because this information has been with held from him. Paul commits a wrong to Onesimus by still considering him property and by encouraging Philemon to consider that he still had that right. But we need to be empathetic to St Paul because all though he had full capacity to make a moral decision, full knowledge was with held from him.

This lack of knowledge that humans being considered property explains such verses as

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

I choose this verse in particular because both the slave owners and slaves are Christians. Paul never says to the Christian masters, you have no property rights over them. But he obviously feels he is saying something good and there is nothing wrong with his capacity to make a right decision except for a lack of knowledge on an ethical issue.

The idea that holding a human as property is wrong (at least amongst Christians) is obvious in Pope Eugene IV’s Sicut Dudum, 1435. He had knowledge that St Paul did not and this allowed him to evolve morality to a higher level than St Paul.

But in answer to your question, whilst diminished capacity obviously reduces one’s culpability; a full capacity with out full knowledge has the same effect. A wrong or at least poorer decision will be made.

 

[Betterave]

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.

I haven’t read through the thread, but I suggest thinking about Jesus’ parable of the wicked servant who buried his master’s money because he thought that was the safe thing to do. Bad idea.

 

[vz71]

No I am not. I am saying that if you do not have full knowledge , you cannot make an informed decision. You may well have the capacity to make an informed decision but that is not of much use to you if you do not have full knowledge. You will still make a wrong decision.

And yet a decision is made.

I am glad you can see the fact of the decision.
It is a question of culpability.

As I believe I posted earlier in the thread, we will be faced with final judgement.
And the whole of our lives will dictate the decisions made at that time.

 

[davidv]

No I am not. I am saying that if you do not have full knowledge , you cannot make an informed decision. You may well have the capacity to make an informed decision but that is not of much use to you if you do not have full knowledge. You will still make a wrong decision.

For example St Paul has full capacity. He obviously wants slaves to be treated well and in one case wants Onesimus to be freed. But he respects Philemon’s right to own Onesimus and so returns him to Philemon and his request to free Onesimus is seeking Philemon’s consent and acknowledging his property rights… St Paul has full capacity when making this decision but lacks the knowledge that keeping a human as property is morally wrong because this information has been with held from him. Paul commits a wrong to Onesimus by still considering him property and by encouraging Philemon to consider that he still had that right. But we need to be empathetic to St Paul because all though he had full capacity to make a moral decision, full knowledge was with held from him.

This lack of knowledge that humans being considered property explains such verses as

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

I choose this verse in particular because both the slave owners and slaves are Christians. Paul never says to the Christian masters, you have no property rights over them. But he obviously feels he is saying something good and there is nothing wrong with his capacity to make a right decision except for a lack of knowledge on an ethical issue.

The idea that holding a human as property is wrong (at least amongst Christians) is obvious in Pope Eugene IV’s Sicut Dudum, 1435. He had knowledge that St Paul did not and this allowed him to evolve morality to a higher level than St Paul.

But in answer to your question, whilst diminished capacity obviously reduces one’s culpability; a full capacity with out full knowledge has the same effect. A wrong or at least poorer decision will be made.

From a “sin” perspective, full knowledge means that one is fully knowledgeable of the sinful nature of the potential action. It does not require knowledge of the consequences.

 

[Nimeniton]

And yet a decision is made.

I am glad you can see the fact of the decision.
It is a question of culpability.

As I believe I posted earlier in the thread, we will be faced with final judgement.
And the whole of our lives will dictate the decisions made at that time.

Actually, I can see no such thing that the fact that a decision was made automatically implies culpability. And I suspect you are being ironic. But if you make such statements you should at least show where the fallacy in my argument lies.

If you look at my argument again you will see that I am saying that Paul had full capacity yet lacked full knowledge and , therefore in all innocence made an immoral decision. You seem to assume that if a person has made a decision he is automatically culpable. I beg to differ. If you deliberately with hold information from someone then condemn them for decisions they made as a result then it is the person with holding the information that is immoral. If you harden a repentant person’s heart so that they sin, then it is the causer who is culpable and not the “sinner”. Exodus 10:16-20

 

[Nimeniton]

From a “sin” perspective, full knowledge means that one is fully knowledgeable of the sinful nature of the potential action. It does not require knowledge of the consequences.

I would not argue with that. My example shows St Paul being unaware of the sinful nature of condoning human beings as property and in that respect lacks full knowledge. This is no different from not realising that stealing is wrong even if the victim never notices the loss. Not noticing the loss is an unforeseen consequence. Interestingly, The Buddha forbade trading in human beings 500 years before Christ. This raises the question why such knowledge was available in India and Nepal but withheld from Paul.

 

[vz71]

Actually, I can see no such thing that the fact that a decision was made automatically implies culpability. And I suspect you are being ironic. But if you make such statements you should at least show where the fallacy in my argument lies.

The fallacy lies in the fact that you claim that no free will exists when in fact there is.
The fact that decision has been made clearly shows the free will that exists.

The question you bring up is one of culpability.
The decision is ours to make, but it is our knowledge of the consequences that dictates the culpability.

 

[vz71]

I would not argue with that. My example shows St Paul being unaware of the sinful nature of condoning human beings as property and in that respect lacks full knowledge. This is no different from not realising that stealing is wrong even if the victim never notices the loss. Not noticing the loss is an unforeseen consequence. Interestingly, The Buddha forbade trading in human beings 500 years before Christ. This raises the question why such knowledge was available in India and Nepal but withheld from Paul.

No such question is raised when one looks at the concept of what exactly a slave of that time was.

But that is seperate from the issue at hand. Just a note that this example is a poor one.

 

[Nimeniton]

No such question is raised when one looks at the concept of what exactly a slave of that time was.

But that is seperate from the issue at hand. Just a note that this example is a poor one.

Not at all. We are talking about slavery as owning another person not their treatment. In that respect the example is apt. And you will notice that Philemon had property rights over Onesimus. Please try to deal with the arguments I present and not some “strawman” that you wish I had presented. fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html. I am well aware of the “slaves were treated differently in those days argument”. You will notice that I have not compared it to the modern day slaving of the 19th century. You will also notice that I mention that Paul requires that slaves should be treated well. My definition of slavery is quite clear - the property right of one person over another. That sort of slavery did exist in Paul’s time and the Letter to Philemon proves it. Read it for yourself if you doubt me.

The point is that owning someone is considered immoral , no matter how well you treat them. Paul was unaware of this. The Buddha was not and neither was one of the later popes. Paul had full, capacity but acted on the false view that owning another person was acceptable. He made a decision but it was not his fault that he acted accordingly. Especially as there is nothing in the Bible that condemns ‘Humans as property’ and in fact plenty that condones it. So you can have full capacity but still not be culpable because your motives are sincere and based on the knowledge available in the Bible at that time.

 

[vz71]

Not at all. We are talking about slavery as owning another person not their treatment.

Quite.
And at the time the relationship was unlike the one you wish to portray.
As I said before, it is off topic.

What is not off-topic however is this insistance that free will is compromised by lack of full knowledge. It is not.

And back to the original question, should humans not have children for the possibility that they may choose poorly. And again the answer is no.

 

[Betterave]

Not at all. We are talking about slavery as owning another person not their treatment. In that respect the example is apt. And you will notice that Philemon had property rights over Onesimus. Please try to deal with the arguments I present and not some “strawman” that you wish I had presented. fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html. I am well aware of the “slaves were treated differently in those days argument”. You will notice that I have not compared it to the modern day slaving of the 19th century. You will also notice that I mention that Paul requires that slaves should be treated well. My definition of slavery is quite clear - the property right of one person over another. That sort of slavery did exist in Paul’s time and the Letter to Philemon proves it. Read it for yourself if you doubt me.

The point is that owning someone is considered immoral , no matter how well you treat them. Paul was unaware of this. The Buddha was not and neither was one of the later popes. Paul had full, capacity but acted on the false view that owning another person was acceptable. He made a decision but it was not his fault that he acted accordingly. Especially as there is nothing in the Bible that condemns ‘Humans as property’ and in fact plenty that condones it. So you can have full capacity but still not be culpable because your motives are sincere and based on the knowledge available in the Bible at that time.

To be clear, Nimeniton, what passage from Philemon would you cite and how would you analyze it, from both textual and moral perspectives? (I’ve been wondering if this isn’t off-topic for this thread, as vz71 says - any thoughts on starting a new one, or explaining the relevance to this one?)

 

[Nimeniton]

Quite.
And at the time the relationship was unlike the one you wish to portray.
As I said before, it is off topic.

Please quote from me to demonstrate your point. You will first have to state what the position was like at that time and you will then have to quote me describing it differently. As I have taken my definition of slavery from Paul’s letter to Philemon, you will be hard pushed to do so.

As to whether the example of St Paul and his attitude to slavery is on or off topic, I have merely used it as an example were full capacity but lack of full knowledge leads a person quite innocently to make an immoral decision. I am not bringing up slavery as a topic of discussion per se. It is just that the example of slavery relates to a point I wish to make on free will. As to whether the discussion of free will is on topic, I will address later.

What is not off-topic however is this insistance that free will is compromised by lack of full knowledge. It is not.

Well that is a start in making an argument. Now demonstrate the weakness in my argument or present an argument to support your position.

And back to the original question, should humans not have children for the possibility that they may choose poorly. And again the answer is no.

Well , a little more than that the poor choice landing them in hell.

Your statement above is not an argument and needs to be demonstrated. However, let me show how free will is connected to the topic. I know you can see the connection but it is not clear to everybody and that is understandable.

The first poster questioned the point of bringing children into the world claiming that it is better not to be born than to risk going to hell. Later it was demonstrated that a baptised child if murdered will be guaranteed heaven and if allowed to live beyond the age of free will this could no longer be guaranteed. Benedictus Deus,Constitution issued by Pope Benedict XII in 1336 papalencyclicals.net/Ben12/B12bdeus.html One could even argue this from a biblical point of view. One can argue that just if living beyond the age of free will puts you in a position of sinning then it is better to lose your whole life than your soul.

And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.Matthew 5:30

What has been agreed is that God will save the soul of a murdered baptised baby. And what is clear from Matthew is that it is better to lose one’s life than one’s soul.

However, there is a problem as killing an innocent child is considered by the church to be murder and the punishment is hell. So it is a high price to pay even if one can overcome natural nurturing instincts.

This is where the discussion of free will comes in. If it can be demonstrated that man does not have free will and if it is accepted that a just God will not punish a man for something he is not culpable of, then no man goes to hell. He can murder the baptised child and fear no consequences. However, the odd twist is that once hell is done away with, then there is no need to kill the child to save its soul.

 

[Nimeniton]

To be clear, Nimeniton, what passage from Philemon would you cite and how would you analyze it, from both textual and moral perspectives? (I’ve been wondering if this isn’t off-topic for this thread, as vz71 says - any thoughts on starting a new one, or explaining the relevance to this one?)

It is a little hard to keep it on topic when VZ71 seems to miss the point I am making and accuse me of arguing something that I am not. For example in challenging the concept of free will, I brought up pedophilia as an example of compulsive behaviour . Of course he could have disagreed that it was wholly compulsive and this would have been valid. Instead he accused me of starting a new topic on pedophilia. So strongly did he feel about it that he threatened to discontinue the argument!

The same has happened with St Paul and slavery. Again this was meant to demonstrate that one could have full capability but lack full knowledge but VZ71 confuses the issue by saying slavery was different then than it was in more recent times. It is rather tedious to have to demonstrate that St Paul accepted that there was nothing wrong with human ownership when a reading of the first chapter of Philemon will demonstrate that.

But he nitpicks on side issues. He even challenged me to prove that the church teaches that (small) children do not have free will and I had to quote from Benedictus Deus. I was really surprised he did not know that. So I feel his accusations of me being off topic are unfair. As to whether this is on topic, I have addressed this in my recent reply to VZ71, so I will not repeat myself.

I would rather move on from Philemon. I have given my reasons for my take on Philemon earlier on in this thread and do not wish to repeat myself. It is really a question of whether one can have full capacity without full knowledge and whether this makes one guiltless. VZ71 says one is still culpable but he has not to date presented an argument as to why.

 

[vz71]

Well that is a start in making an argument. Now demonstrate the weakness in my argument or present an argument to support your position.

Apparently some here are not paying attention to the thread.
It has been shown several times now.
The fact of the decision itself proves free will. A lack of full knowledge does not diminish the capacity for a free decision.

 

[vz71]

He even challenged me to prove that the church teaches that (small) children do not have free will and I had to quote from Benedictus Deus. I was really surprised he did not know that.

I must say I am surprised at the behavior attributed to me.

Please provide the specific quotes pertaining to your statement above.

 

[Betterave]

…] It is rather tedious to have to demonstrate that St Paul accepted that there was nothing wrong with human ownership when a reading of the first chapter of Philemon will demonstrate that.
…]
I would rather move on from Philemon. I have given my reasons for my take on Philemon earlier on in this thread and do not wish to repeat myself. It is really a question of whether one can have full capacity without full knowledge and whether this makes one guiltless. VZ71 says one is still culpable but he has not to date presented an argument as to why.

I’m still curious, though: how does Philemon demonstrate what you say it does? You wrote:
For example St Paul has full capacity. He obviously wants slaves to be treated well and in one case wants Onesimus to be freed. But he respects Philemon’s right to own Onesimus and so returns him to Philemon and his request to free Onesimus is seeking Philemon’s consent and acknowledging his property rights… St Paul has full capacity when making this decision but lacks the knowledge that keeping a human as property is morally wrong because this information has been with held from him. Paul commits a wrong to Onesimus by still considering him property and by encouraging Philemon to consider that he still had that right. But we need to be empathetic to St Paul because all though he had full capacity to make a moral decision, full knowledge was with held from him.

Now clearly St. Paul recognizes Philemon’s legal rights over Onesimus. But I don’t see evidence that he recognizes his moral rights over him. He seems to exercising *moral *suasion in order to (strongly!) encourage Philemon to relinquish his *legal *rights.

8 …though I have much confidence in Christ Jesus to command you that which is to the purpose, 9 for charity’s sake I rather beseech…

As to the general point, full knowledge and full capacity are not independent. Right? And a lack of either does not necessarily render an act guiltless. The state of lacking either one may be the result of a guilty act (e.g., respectively, skipping school or getting drunk). Would you dispute that there is such a thing as wilful ignorance? Would you assert that gross negligence is always innocent?