Humans having children and Hell

[Betterave]

No it is not true that I have simply stated that it is not true.I have stated that eternal torture cannot be justified because it is of no benefit to the tortured.. That, sir, is giving a reason and not mere denial.

No. That sir, is a non sequitur. Unless you’re assuming that the only way to justify eternal torture is by having it benefit the tortured. In that case you’re still just begging the question.

Let me expand. One is not usually called upon to demonstrate that torture is immoral. Rather one is called upon to prove that it is moral. As torture causes suffering one has to justify it. One has to show what good comes out of that suffering. You may allow your child to be innoculated because the health benefits outweigh the temporary pain but if it was found that the innoculation caused more harm than benefit then the suffering is not justified. One does not have to prove that suffering is immoral!!!

That is nonsense. You have just mentioned an example showing that some instances of suffering are not immoral, therefore if one wants to claim that a particular instance of suffering is immoral then one certainly does have to prove it!

But morality is to a large part based on not causing unneccesary harm. Stealing causes suffering to the owner, murder to the victim and their families, adultery to the spouse and the family etc etc. You would consider it rediculous for me to ask you to prove that these actions were not immoral - on the basis that because there is suffering it must be moral!

No, that’s a non sequitur. See above. (I assume the last word here was supposed to be “immoral.”)

On the contrary, it is necessary to prove that suffering is moral. Rather than begging the question with regard to assuming that torture is immoral it would seem that you are “special pleading” that torture is good.

Not in the least.

To be honest I was quite shocked by your response and the implications of it.If the onus is on one to prove that suffering is not immoral rather than proving it is of benefit, what sort of world would we live in. But I do not think you are applying this universally but are in fact special pleading when it comes to God.

Please check your logic and get back to me.

 

[Betterave]

I also do not usually comment on responses which the person should know that I agree with i.e that killing is not always wrong or that I believe have no relevance to the debate i.e that God does not really have two hands.

Okay, but then you have to explain why God’s killing people is wrong such that his punishing those who kill unjustly is hypocritical.

In answers to your question. Wilful ignorance doesn’t make a man culpable, it merely shows that emotional drives are making him want to avoid certain truths. He may well be partly aware of this… He is simply the victim of his instincts. He is not acting with free will. Even if he were fully aware that does not mean he has free will. Strong emotional drives, temptation, fear etc are as much to do with free will as choices made with a gun pointing to one’s head.

So you think that wilful ignorance is never vincible? Interesting. And I take it you really do think that no one is ever really morally guilty? And you think you are prepared to accept all of the consequences of that belief?

 

[mangy_dog]

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.

Your answer lies in two key words that you use…Choice (choose) and Possibility.

There is a 3rd word you use - “if”…that one is understandibly for not knowing how to [choose] or the outcome of a possibility.

 

[JDaniel]

I think the original question gets to the very heart of a very mysterious aspect about God and another question!

It would seem that God respect human freedom so much that he allows humans to choose hell. Wouldn’t a more “humane” solution say that it would be better if that person never existed at all, or rather, if that person merely just ceased to exist???

It would seem that within the mystery of God, allowing a human to exist in Hell is better, or the lesser of two evils, than allowing the person not to exist at all.

This seems a great and strange mystery indeed!!!

GuardianR4:

God’s nature, as mysterious as it can very often be to us mortals, is not all that mysterious in regard to this subject. God’s Nature is to Love, as he is Love; God’s Nature is to be Omnipotent, as he is Omnipotence; God’s Nature is to be Creative, as he is the Creator; God’s Nature is to be fecund, as he is fecundity.

So, God must express what he is, his nature, and this is in no way a limitation in him. If he did not, that would be contradictory. He’s not some old guy with a white beard that sits around in Heaven pondering what he should do next, or, when he should do it, then reserving action until after he’s thought it through a little more carefully. The Nature of birds is to fly, the Nature of an army is to smash things and crush the enemy. The Nature of God is to Create, and thereby, sustain.

God makes people - his pinnacle (in a sense) achievements. He makes people as perfect as composites of form and matter can be made. (I know that our atheist friends will object to this last statement, but, I am not going to debate it here. I have discussed it all over these fora for well over a year.) Part of man’s perfecting gifts is the capability to choose. Remove this capability and you remove that which makes man his pinnacle achievement. Tweak it so that it loses some of this capability, and you lessen man’s perfection.

It is said that if a teacher is able to teach one student, he/she has fulfilled his/her purpose. Likewise, if God saves some of his creations, he has fulfilled his purpose. Catholics believe that he would prefer to save them all, but knows that that is not going to happen. Nevertheless, he loves them to the gates of Hell and beyond. That, too, is part of his nature.

Despite what some atheists think.

God bless,
jd

 

[Nimeniton]

Again, I will just point out that you are simply begging the question here. Hell is morally good. It is torture for the sake of justice, which is a moral good. You have failed to respond to this point and instead have simply begged the question by asserting that it is not true.

I could also argue that the statement that “doing something for justice makes it morally good” is begging the question. I could say that “What ever God does is good” is begging the question, Hitler had the Jews killed because he believed it was doing the world a moral good. This was his justice.

Your argument is that people who are in hell justly deserve to be there (even though in my opinion they are not responsible for being deliberately brought into this world). You also assume with your example that it is only murderers who go there. We are not talking just about serial murderers, but practicing homosexuals, couples who have sex before marriage, people who do not go to mass on Sunday when they are healthy, people who have left the church because they genuinely believe that it preaches falsehoods; people who are greedy (have you updated your computer, car etc rather than give the money to the poor). etc

catholicdoors.com/faq/qu06.htm.

Why at one time if the priest had said mass in English in the days of the Latin rite, this too was a mortal sin.

These are the people who you believe deserve to be tortured in hell. In fact every time you deliberately walk past a beggar in the street you risk hell fire.

• “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
  
  “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”* Matthew 25:44-46

These are the people that divine justice considers should suffer for all eternity. It is you, sir, who are begging the question by assuming that whatever God does must be just. Claiming that someone is just does not make them just. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them Matthew 7:20

Now imagine your 16 year old daughter gets jealous because she discovers that her boyfriend is cheating on her. How long do you intend to whip her for this heinous mortal sin? Bearing in mind that God will torture her for eternity if she does not repent before her death. You call that justice. You call it a mystery. It is certainly a mystery to me how anybody can see this as a justice.

 

[Nimeniton]

Doesn’t that assume the torture is not a self inflicted?

If we choose to have nothing to do with God, that will cause our own suffering.
If God respects our decision and exercise of our free will, then what culpability is that of God?

It is our decision. Right?

Yes it does assume that the torture in hell is not self inflicted.

Hell is not self inflicted according to the Bible. By this I mean the view that people choose to stay away from God for all eternity. I have already, on this thread, given the example of the angels throwing one into hell fire. Luke 16:19-31 is also an example which shows that a person does not choose to be in hell. Abraham asks for relief and is refused. Even when he shows compassion for his surviving relatives, he still has to stay in hell and his prayer for his relatives is rejected.

 

[BlueSprite]

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.

To posit what no life is like vs. life is impossible…for all our imaginings are based solely on our experiences - which are founded in life.

So it’s absolutely, absolutely, impossible to fathom “no life.” Therefore it’s impossible to say that “no life” would be “better” than life. It’s just something you can’t even discuss.

Re: Hell - well, yes - we have a choice…but! It’s not without having received guidance on how to choose…it’s not as though humans have been left to wander about in the wild with no light to guide them…

 

[Nimeniton]

Okay, but then you have to explain why God’s killing people is wrong such that his punishing those who kill unjustly is hypocritical.

I have already explained this earlier in the thread. I argued that God also kills unjustly. He takes lives of the innocent and the not so innocent and he does it without permission. He does it on the grounds that he has property rights. This goes even further than Exodus 21:20-21.

So you think that wilful ignorance is never vincible? Interesting. And I take it you really do think that no one is ever really morally guilty? And you think you are prepared to accept all of the consequences of that belief?

In answer to all your questions. Yes, I do. Incidently, it also makes empathy easier.

I am not going to say anymore at this stage. I await your response. I am prepared.

 

[Nimeniton]

No. That sir, is a non sequitur. Unless you’re assuming that the only way to justify eternal torture is by having it benefit the tortured. In that case you’re still just begging the question…

I am assuming that otherwise it is just pure sadism.

 

[Betterave]

I could also argue that the statement that “doing something for justice makes it morally good” is begging the question. I could say that “What ever God does is good” is begging the question, Hitler had the Jews killed because he believed it was doing the world a moral good. This was his justice.

If you *could *argue that, please do! Otherwise, why mention it? (*Saying *that I could argue that the moon is made of cheese is different from *doing *so and not very interesting.)

As for Hitler, you may not have noticed, but Hitler is not God, and that makes a big difference about what things we can reasonably say about each one.

Your argument is that people who are in hell justly deserve to be there (even though in my opinion they are not responsible for being deliberately brought into this world).

“even though in my opinion they are not responsible for being deliberately brought into this world”? - what does that have to do with anything?

You also assume with your example that it is only murderers who go there.

I certainly don’t. What made you think that?

These are the people that divine justice considers should suffer for all eternity. It is you, sir, who are begging the question by assuming that whatever God does must be just. Claiming that someone is just does not make them just. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them Matthew 7:20

How is this begging the question? Please spell out the question-begging argument you take me to have offered here.

Now imagine your 16 year old daughter gets jealous because she discovers that her boyfriend is cheating on her. How long do you intend to whip her for this heinous mortal sin? Bearing in mind that God will torture her for eternity if she does not repent before her death. You call that justice. You call it a mystery. It is certainly a mystery to me how anybody can see this as a justice.

Aren’t you making a lot of pretty wild assumptions there? (Just so you know, I wouldn’t whip her at all, and I assume this would be at most a venial sin which would certainly not merit eternal damnation.)

 

[Nimeniton]

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…

I seem to have missed this. I understand the distinction you have made between legal and moral. Obviously to free Onesimus is an act of compassion and Paul appeals to Love and that is a positive aspect to morality. He also speaks of Onesimus’s usefulness and seems to be arguing that he deserves his freedom rather than arguing that human ownership is wrong per se . His response to the legal issue seems to encourage this view. For example why Paul did not criticise it from a negative moral perspective.

Let me give you an example that I think a Catholic would understand. A woman is considering an abortion. It is in a country where it is legal. You point out that the child is healthy and ask that she allows the child to live and enjoy life. This is pointing out to her a positive better option. You acknowledge that she has a legal right but would you not also point out that her action was morally wrong, causing suffering to the child and endangering her own soul.

So I would say here that human ownership being wrong is not the moral issue that Paul is addressing. However, asking Philemon to act out of love, to reward a useful individual, is , of course, a moral issue.

 

[Betterave]

I have already explained this earlier in the thread. I argued that God also kills unjustly. He takes lives of the innocent and the not so innocent and he does it without permission. He does it on the grounds that he has property rights. This goes even further than Exodus 21:20-21.

Are you aware of the concept of ‘collateral damage’? It is acceptable for humans to take innocent and not-so-innocent human lives too, in certain situations. A fortiori, if God is God, this must be true for Him. (Remember: for Him death is a passage which he always sees both sides of. We only see one side, so we are in a very different position… and that’s just a *fact *about the difference between us and God - it’s certainly not special pleading.

I am not going to say anymore at this stage. I await your response. I am prepared.

We can see if you’re prepared later, after you’ve cleaned up your logic on the preceding points.

 

[Nimeniton]

If you *could *argue that, please do! Otherwise, why mention it? (*Saying *that I could argue that the moon is made of cheese is different from *doing *so and not very interesting.)

You argued that it was divine justice that God sent people to hell. That is the explanation given by the church. But is the punishment appropriate? With Hitler he saw the Jews as parasites. Even if this was true was the punishment he gave them in terms of hardship and death appropriate. Sorry I did not make this clear.

As for Hitler, you may not have noticed, but Hitler is not God, and that makes a big difference about what things we can reasonably say about each one

.Only if you assume that God cannot do evil.

“even though in my opinion they are not responsible for being deliberately brought into this world”? - what does that have to do with anything? I certainly don’t. What made you think that?

That was just an aside. However, God does not have to bring those into the world who with fore knowledge he knows will choose hell. He could just bring those into the world who will choose heaven.

How is this begging the question? Please spell out the question-begging argument you take me to have offered here.

You claimed that God sending people to hell was divine justice. I assume you believe that God can only act justly (i.e morally). I am assuming he is not acting morally. I do not see the difference between the two positions - but you claim mine is begging the question.

Aren’t you making a lot of pretty wild assumptions there? (Just so you know, I wouldn’t whip her at all, and I assume this would be at most a venial sin which would certainly not merit eternal damnation.)

O Dear, I did not mean that to be taken as a literal reflection on who you are. But I have on my list of mortal sins that jealousy is one of them. So a good whipping would be mild compared to eternal punishment. Actually, I think you are a decent person and I enjoy our debates. It is good to be challenged by you.

I have been thinking though that whether God is just or not and whether there is free will or not or whether people deserve to go to hell, does not really lend much to the topic at hand. Perhaps we could debate those subjects on a different thread. If you so wish.

Free will was only related to the topic in that some people argued that God valued free will and it gave people the option of heaven which never being born would not. The argument being that if people were unborn they would be deprived of heaven. I pointed out that the church included categories of people who do not have free will such as young children - so free will is not an essential in gaining salvation.I also would argue now that God could allow only those he knew would choose him (foreknowledge according to Catholic teaching not undermining free will) so they could benefit from heaven whilst keeping unborn those who would be otherwise damned.

 

[Nimeniton]

Are you aware of the concept of ‘collateral damage’? It is acceptable for humans to take innocent and not-so-innocent human lives too, in certain situations. A fortiori, if God is God, this must be true for Him. (Remember: for Him death is a passage which he always sees both sides of. We only see one side, so we are in a very different position… and that’s just a *fact *about the difference between us and God - it’s certainly not special pleading.

I can understand that from a human perceptive although I find the concept repugnant if evil necessity. However, I do not see how that would be an issue for an omnipotent God. A few American bombs may go astray and kill a few innocents unintentionally or it is not pragmatic for them to avoid some civilian deaths but why that should also apply to an omnipotent God, I cannot see the logic. Sure volcanic lava hurtling down a hill is going to kill the good and bad aside if it is merely a “blind force” at work but an omnipotent God can over ride natural forces.

I have acknowledged elsewhere that if there existed an omniscient deity that it is perfectly valid to assume that he can understand things that we cannot. It does not really help much though in deciding whether God can do evil or not because it is outside our “vision”. It just demonstrates that there may be things we do not know. But it does not prove that God cannot do (moral) evil.

I will do my best;-) But maybe on another thread.

 

[Betterave]

Nimeniton,
Just a quick comment for now, then I’ve got to go:
What do you mean when you use the word ‘God’? It seems to me that in this context we should take you to be referring to the Catholic concept of God. (This context is one where the primary point of discussion is not the nature of God, but the nature of God’s particular actions, especially as these pertain to hell). So in this context a God who does evil or an unjust God is like a square circle, i.e., a contradiction in terms - unless you have already proven that God’s actions are unjust, which you would have to do by *showing *that the Catholic concept of God is internally inconsistent. You can’t *assume *that God is unjust in order to show that God cannot be just by definition; that would be begging the question. I hope this makes sense, gotta go!

 

[vz71]

Your argument is that people who are in hell justly deserve to be there (even though in my opinion they are not responsible for being deliberately brought into this world). You also assume with your example that it is only murderers who go there. We are not talking just about serial murderers, but practicing homosexuals, couples who have sex before marriage, people who do not go to mass on Sunday when they are healthy, people who have left the church because they genuinely believe that it preaches falsehoods; people who are greedy (have you updated your computer, car etc rather than give the money to the poor). etc

All sins that can readily result in hell. Unless you wish to argue that sin is not really sin?
You forget that the only sin that really sends us to hell is the ultimate refusal to accept God’s divine mercy.
All other sin on our part leads us down the road that leads there, but it is this ultimate refusal that places us in hell.

These are the people who you believe deserve to be tortured in hell. In fact every time you deliberately walk past a beggar in the street you risk hell fire.

Correct!
You would think we would eventually learn to simply follow God’s laws then risk refusing him once too often.

These are the people that divine justice considers should suffer for all eternity. It is you, sir, who are begging the question by assuming that whatever God does must be just. Claiming that someone is just does not make them just. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them Matthew 7:20

Now imagine your 16 year old daughter gets jealous because she discovers that her boyfriend is cheating on her. How long do you intend to whip her for this heinous mortal sin? Bearing in mind that God will torture her for eternity if she does not repent before her death. You call that justice. You call it a mystery. It is certainly a mystery to me how anybody can see this as a justice.

If the jealousy leads there, then her decision is refusal of God. Hell is appropriate.
I fail to see the sense in your argument.
You appear to be arguing that sins should not result in hell.
I have to admit, this has me confused.

Yes it does assume that the torture in hell is not self inflicted.

The chief torture of hell is the permenant seperation from God. No one can take responsibility for that then the condemned.

Hell is not self inflicted according to the Bible. By this I mean the view that people choose to stay away from God for all eternity. I have already, on this thread, given the example of the angels throwing one into hell fire. Luke 16:19-31 is also an example which shows that a person does not choose to be in hell. Abraham asks for relief and is refused. Even when he shows compassion for his surviving relatives, he still has to stay in hell and his prayer for his relatives is rejected.

Actually, it does not say at all that the rich man did not inflict hell upon themselves. Just that he is in agony.
And it is very interesting that he asks for only some relief rather then to be removed from hell altogether.
If he really can make such requests, surely he would request to be removed from hell?
Sorry, but this story in Luke really shoots holes in your theory. It highlights someone in hell choosing to stay there.

 

[Nimeniton]

You appear to be arguing that sins should not result in hell.
I have to admit, this has me confused.

.

Indeed I am for the simple reason that the punishment is inappropriate. We are talking about suffering without relief and not a fifty year jail sentence.

 

[Nimeniton]

Actually, it does not say at all that the rich man did not inflict hell upon themselves. Just that he is in agony.
And it is very interesting that he asks for only some relief rather then to be removed from hell altogether.
If he really can make such requests, surely he would request to be removed from hell?
Sorry, but this story in Luke really shoots holes in your theory. It highlights someone in hell choosing to stay there.

So you would like to argue that he was enjoying himself there. I think you are being literalistic in your reading. If he receives relief from his suffering he is no longer in Hell. Hell is defined by eternal suffering. There is nothing in this passage that suggests that he wants to be there. Nothing that suggests that he chooses to be there.

This is also true of

*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

Here it is quite clear that God’s angels’ put the sinners in hell (fiery furnace). You are going to argue that they don’t actually say hell aren’t you

 

[Nimeniton]

Nimeniton,
Just a quick comment for now, then I’ve got to go:
What do you mean when you use the word ‘God’? It seems to me that in this context we should take you to be referring to the Catholic concept of God. (This context is one where the primary point of discussion is not the nature of God, but the nature of God’s particular actions, especially as these pertain to hell). So in this context a God who does evil or an unjust God is like a square circle, i.e., a contradiction in terms - unless you have already proven that God’s actions are unjust, which you would have to do by *showing *that the Catholic concept of God is internally inconsistent. You can’t *assume *that God is unjust in order to show that God cannot be just by definition; that would be begging the question. I hope this makes sense, gotta go!

Well, I do not believe I am assuming that he is unjust in order to prove that God is unjust by definition. That would be begging the question. Instead I argue from the stance of “Look at his actions”, if an ordinary human did this would it be considered just or unjust? You yourself argued that the hypothetical example of your daughter being jealous was not deserving of hell. I would agree with you. However, another contributor has said that such behaviour is deserving of hell. And according to this list jealousy is one of the mortal sins.

catholicdoors.com/faq/qu06.htm

In this one they just mention envy.

saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html

 

[vz71]

Indeed I am for the simple reason that the punishment is inappropriate. We are talking about suffering without relief and not a fifty year jail sentence.

Would you have God inflict himself upon someone that does not want any part of him?

We are not talking about the sins you describe.
We are talking about an eternal rejection of the love and mercy of God.