Humans having children and Hell

[vz71]

I would accept your apology but for the fact that is is insincere and ironic… It is not a burden for me to clarify with a full citation. It is, however, a burden to have to repeat myself because you are too lazy to refer to recent messages between us. I refer you to message #158 directed to yourself where I both quote the passage and give the full citation. Now when I was in the wrong with you I apologised for my error, now let us see what stuff you are made of.

Well now that I have a reference to go with, I can proceed.

What exactly is this ‘angel quote’ supposed to prove again?

Also you need to demonstrate why just asking for temporary relief means he wants to stay where he is? I would say it is more like the prisoner asking for some food. The fact he asks for some food and not release is not because he does not want his freedom but because he knows it will not be granted. The food , however, he may get. Remember the angel quote.

Is the implication here that he knows he will not get release so he will not ask?
Seems we would have to dig pretty deep into the head of someone else to be able to determine that at all. You are arguing that we do not have free will, but you wish us to believe psychic ability?
Of course, that is only one of the problems. The other is that the quote also shows that this person is evil (at least given the quote you provided in post 158). And that alone is enough to question any motive at all.

 

[Betterave]

With regard to the first point. I do understand the Catholic definition but one can still question whether the conclusion they draw is correct. The third point we do not need to persue as you do not believe you are in disagreement with God here.

I’m not too sure what you mean here.

I will , therefore, focus on the issue as to whether God is good or just and will now take a different tack. The first thing I would say is that you would have to know what “good” is before you would know whether God was good or not. And if you do not know what good is then you would have to hold the belief that “God is good” as a matter of faith. If one holds the latter position (and some Christians do) then there is a difficulty when it comes to discerning the spirits. I think this is a good starting point.

Okay, if that’s your starting point, where do you go from there?

I would expand and modify your second sentence above to say that you would have to know what “good” is, *as well as *knowing what/who God/“God” is, before you would *understand *that God is perfectly good.

 

[Betterave]

Right.
In the instance of the student not doing homework, this is the knowledge of the consequence.

Right, that’s obvious. But the question is whether the case is *similarly *obvious in the case of hell.

So it is your contention that people should be excused from hell not because they had no idea the consequence of their action (sin) but because they did not have full capacity?

I wouldn’t regard it as *my *contention. I think that is simply the teaching of the Church and intuitively obvious, isn’t it??

Of course, as I mentioned earlier, you don’t get a free pass for, say, killing someone while drinking and driving, just because you weren’t at full capacity. We *may *well often be culpable for lacking knowledge or full capacity. When you look at some of the closed-minded, question-begging, ad hominem, etc. arguments on this forum, I think it’s easy enough to conceive the real possibility that some people are really just not trying to be reasonable and to come to know the truth. And when passages in the Bible refer to God hardening hearts, I think that this needs to be understood as the just reward for those who have first made the decision to harden their own hearts. It is a fitting confirmation of the perversity they have chosen, and I think that even if you don’t believe in God, it is something that can be seen to happen quite naturally. Perversity breeds perversity, one act of injustice engenders another. These principles are not just weird, contrived matters of faith.

 

[Nimeniton]

Done and done.
What you describe is contemplation. Most Catholics are familiar with it in one form or another. And you will find many that go to Adoration accomplish this with regularity.
You will also find this singularity of thought accomplished in the Rosary as well as many other places within our faith.

You may be impressed if you wish. I am not. I have seen these examples for much of my life. All this tells me is that we are subject to our own will not whatever stray passion may be out there.

And this is as it should be. God provided his church and the sacraments that I may know him and love him. It makes perfect sense that it would be replete with examples as you provided above showing how we can rise above our passions.

2 points for free will, and God.

Ok It was only for 5 minutes and I made it very easy. However, I am not convinced by your self appraisal. Let us tighten up the rules

For 1 hour

1. Keep your eyes closed. Do not open them once
2. Think only the thought, “God is just”
3. You get a friend to observe you and you must answer his questions honestly

You will have failed the test if

1. You open your eyes even once
2. if you have any verbal thoughts other than “God is just” i.e if you think “Did I turn the oven off” or “I will show Nimeniton he is wrong” or if you think “Is the hour up yet” You have failed.
3. No visual images are permitted to come into your mind. if the image of a friend pops into your mind. You have failed.
4. If you look at the time. You have failed (You are permitted to set an alarm)
5. If the reciting of the phrase “God is just” becomes mechanical, you have failed. You must mean it every time you say it.
6. You are not permitted to scratch if you feel itchy.

Come back to me with the results.

 

[Nimeniton]

Well now that I have a reference to go with, I can proceed.

What exactly is this ‘angel quote’ supposed to prove again?

Is the implication here that he knows he will not get release so he will not ask?
Seems we would have to dig pretty deep into the head of someone else to be able to determine that at all. You are arguing that we do not have free will, but you wish us to believe psychic ability?
Of course, that is only one of the problems. The other is that the quote also shows that this person is evil (at least given the quote you provided in post 158). And that alone is enough to question any motive at all.

Please answer my points and not the points you wish to answer. if you want to know what I said just re-read all our previous correspondence. You will notice one where I confused you with someone else and you demanded an apology. I complied. Hint Hint

 

[Nimeniton]

I’m not too sure what you mean here.

Okay, if that’s your starting point, where do you go from there?

I would expand and modify your second sentence above to say that you would have to know what “good” is, *as well as *knowing what/who God/“God” is, before you would *understand *that God is perfectly good.

I disagree. In finding out if someone is good or not you have to observe them and judge them by some criteria. You do not know that person before you judge them and if you did there would be no need to observe them. If my experience of someone is that they are punctual, I do not keep a check on their time keeping to find out if they are the punctual sort.

But I may have misunderstood you. Could you clarify why you feel we have to know what God is before we make any judgment?

 

[vz71]

Ok It was only for 5 minutes and I made it very easy. However, I am not convinced by your self appraisal. Let us tighten up the rules

No, I am not going to play the game anymore.

You laid out groundwork that you believed proved your point.
Not only did it not prove your point, it weakened and showed it to be wrong.

The simple facts are clear.
People exercise their free will every day.
Further, these people can and do exercise their free will over whatever stray passions there may be.

And so far your efforts to show that free will does not exist have led to proving otherwise.

 

[vz71]

Please answer my points and not the points you wish to answer.

Of course you wish me to ignore the weaker points of your argument.

I suggest changing your argument to one that has no weak points.

 

[Betterave]

I disagree. In finding out if someone is good or not you have to observe them and judge them by some criteria.

I’d have thought that was MY point. You have to know someone (in this case God, but this applies to anyone or anything) before you can predicate any qualities of him. You can know him personally or you can know his nature/kind or you can know both. But you have to somehow know him before being able to understand whether and how a given predicate applies to him.

We also don’t and can’t know the meaning of a predicate like ‘good’ independently from its application to concrete instances of goodness. We don’t have some perfect, ready-made concept of goodness which can function as a perfect standard by which to judge the goodness of anything whatsoever. Our concept of goodness is subject to modification as we learn more about actual good things.

 

[Betterave]

Comment 1. I would say that your thoughts are conditioned though instincts play a large part in it, But if you want to test how much control you have on your thoughts, set a time 24 hours from now . Decide at 6.30 pm that you will think “God is just”** this thought and no other** for the next five minutes. If you can do that I will be very impressed. If you cannot stop other thoughts coming into your mind, what does that say to you?

Whether or not anyone can meet the conditions imposed by some such arbitrary test of mind control, what is the pertinence? How would you answer your own question here: what does that say to you?

Comment 2. Imagine it like this. A small girl is playing with her toys. In the game the little girl has two toys arguing. Now these are special toys who have self awareness. She tells the two toys off for arguing and tells them to apologise. Into the mind of one toy she puts the thought of forgiveness and into the other the thought of revenge. The little girl praises the good toy and chastises the bad toy. She tells the bad toy that it is worthy of blame and will be punished.The little girl is very happy. She has exercised her power. It is not the toys’ fault for the choices they have made but who are they to complain they belong to the girl and she can do what she likes with them. The girl feels very pleased with herself, she has demonstrated her power. The just therefore are those who have power. And as God has the most power he is the most just. This is the gist of Paul’s argument.

I can see how you could construct this picture on the basis of the Pauline texts you have chosen, but your choice of texts has been very biased towards presenting the view you are promoting here. You do realize that, don’t you? To be fair about it you really ought to present some of the other texts that would seem to contradict your point of view and attempt to explain them too.

 

[freerf]

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.

You could ask the same question as an athiest. What I mean is an athiest could ask, “why would anyone chose to have children if there is a possibility their child will suffer?”

We have children because it is good. Why did God create us if there was the chance some of his children would go to hell? Because it is good. I suppose you’d have to have your own children to realize what a good thing it is.

 

[BlueShadow123]

That is a dumb question.

What you do is try to guide your kid from not GOING to a place like that. But yes, in the end, it is their choice.

You won’t cry over them though. Because in heaven we don’t cry, so I would assume that even though it might pain you now, you probably won’t see it that way while you’re in heaven.

Ask your parents the question and see what they say.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, but wouldn’t you say that the likelihood of going to Hell is far greater? If there was even a in 100 chance of my breakfast cereal doing that to me, I wouldn’t eat it.

What makes you think that the likelihood of going to Hell is far greater than going to Heaven? Probability does not even apply to persons with free will. Each choice we make is unrelated to what choices others make - if it is genuinely ours.

Do you think it would be better if no one had been created?

 

[Nimeniton]

No, I am not going to play the game anymore.

You laid out groundwork that you believed proved your point.
Not only did it not prove your point, it weakened and showed it to be wrong.

The simple facts are clear.
People exercise their free will every day.
Further, these people can and do exercise their free will over whatever stray passions there may be.

And so far your efforts to show that free will does not exist have led to proving otherwise.

It is not a game. You could learn something useful from it You have yet to show me that free will exists. You claim you can keep concentrated for 5 minutes yet you struggle to remember a quote I made to you. You accuse me of not making the quote and when I point it out to you, you then asked me why I made the quote. Do you wonder then I doubt your self appraisal. You cannot keep focus on a simple argument. Not only that when I confused you with someone else, you demanded an apology. I gave it. You have falsely accused me , of not making the quote and being vague yet no apology comes from you. Not only do I question your self appraisal but your integrity. The word hypocrite comes to mind.

You have not shown that free will exists. You have done little more than assert your belief. I am unimpressed both in your argument and in you as a man… Now if you want a Catholic exemplar , I would suggest Betterave. He has integrity and can put a logical argument together.

 

[Nimeniton]

Of course you wish me to ignore the weaker points of your argument.

I suggest changing your argument to one that has no weak points.

That is a lie and I find your libelous attitude despicable, as indeed you are. What I asked was that you address points that I have made and not one’s you wished I had made. I would rather not get into a position of attacking each other. But please understand that I will defend myself and that may mean me having to point out your flaws. And I feel that you have already forced me into that unfortunate position. I would appeal to a moderator to interject here.

 

[Nimeniton]

I’d have thought that was MY point. You have to know someone (in this case God, but this applies to anyone or anything) before you can predicate any qualities of him. You can know him personally or you can know his nature/kind or you can know both. But you have to somehow know him before being able to understand whether and how a given predicate applies to him.

We also don’t and can’t know the meaning of a predicate like ‘good’ independently from its application to concrete instances of goodness. We don’t have some perfect, ready-made concept of goodness which can function as a perfect standard by which to judge the goodness of anything whatsoever. Our concept of goodness is subject to modification as we learn more about actual good things.

You have to know their actions and their motives, agreed. Your second paragraph presents a difficulty for me. Is it possible to have some criteria to judge whether someone is good or just or are you saying that is impossible or maybe just difficult? I would like us to agree on some criteria, if possible, otherwise I can not take this discussion further. If people say God is good and just they must have judged him by some criteria. It may not be perfect but there has to be something. How else could one tell good from evil?

 

[Nimeniton]

Whether or not anyone can meet the conditions imposed by some such arbitrary test of mind control, what is the pertinence? How would you answer your own question here: what does that say to you?

To me it demonstrates that one is not the master of one’s own thoughts. With effort one can bring one’s thoughts under control for limited periods of time but still it is dependent on conditions, such as the correct thoughts arising; supportive conditions and support from others. To me this says that free will does not exist.

I can see how you could construct this picture on the basis of the Pauline texts you have chosen, but your choice of texts has been very biased towards presenting the view you are promoting here. You do realize that, don’t you? To be fair about it you really ought to present some of the other texts that would seem to contradict your point of view and attempt to explain them too.

I have searched for them (quotes in favour of free will) but cannot find them. Or at least the one’s presented as supporting free will, I cannot see how the argument for free will is supported. But if you know of some convincing quotes please present them.

Although I looked for quotes supporting free will,I have not felt a strong need to provide “balanced” quotes on the assumption that I was under the impression that Catholic Church believed the Bible to be the word of God and that contradiction within the sacred scriptures is not possible. So, it seemed sufficient to argue that there is a strong argument against free will in the Bible. I have only listed a few of such quotes. There are many more. However, if this is not the position (the Bible cannot self contradict) of the Catholic church or I have presented a simplistic view, I am happy to be corrected.

 

[Nimeniton]

You could ask the same question as an athiest. What I mean is an athiest could ask, “why would anyone chose to have children if there is a possibility their child will suffer?”

We have children because it is good. Why did God create us if there was the chance some of his children would go to hell? Because it is good. I suppose you’d have to have your own children to realize what a good thing it is.

I am assuming that you mean that it is good to bring children into the world and not good that they could go to hell.The question you ask is a good one. Atheists bringing children into this world will see them suffer to a lesser or greater degree, although never for eternity (in their opinion). People might argue that we have children because there is a strong biological urge to do so.

You might have to clarify what you mean by the word “good”. Is it good because it gives the parents pleasure. Yes, I can see that. Is it good because the children’s actions may bring improvements to the world. Yes, I can see that. Is it good because they have their moments of happiness. Yes I can see that too.

But would it be good to bring them into the world if you knew they would definitely go to hell and suffer not just temporarily but for eternity? This is a question that an atheist does not have to answer but only a Christian and again only those Christians who believe in hell.

The Old testament and New Testament attitudes to bringing children into the world differ. The Old Testament encourages bringing as many into the world as possible whereas the New Testament encourages celibacy but allows marriage for pragmatic and moral reasons

1. Corinthians 7:9 and Matthew 19:11-12. The family was seen as a distraction to whole hearted devotion to God, so in that sense it was not seen as a good thing. It was seen as good in providing a legitimate outlet for sex which otherwise might turn to illegitimate sex.

 

[vz71]

It is not a game. You could learn something useful from it

According to the dictionary, a game consists of “…physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each…”
You did establish rules, and specific goals to win.
It fits the definition.
Now. I completed the game and showed mastery of my own thoughts.
And I have also provided many examples where the conditions set forth in the game are met and mastery of thought achieved in religious life.
This shows a freedom of will over and above any type of human passion that it is claimed we are slave to.
Free will here wins again.
There is no need to play the game again to show this.

You have yet to show me that free will exists.

I have shown repeatedly the very definition of free will.
Let’s go back to the definition to be certain…
Free Will, according to the dictionary is

1 : voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

The rules outlined in the thought game help a great deal here. The mastery of thought shows that these people are able to detach from everyday distraction to accomplish a goal that they want. Free people making free choices. Free will again is shown.

You claim you can keep concentrated for 5 minutes yet you struggle to remember a quote I made to you.

Concentration over a 5 minute period is not as difficult as people think.
When you think about it, many people do this every day without even realizing.
Athletes will often refer to it as “in the zone” where all of their conscious efforts concentrate into one specific task and people can stay in this zone for quite a long time.

You accuse me of not making the quote and when I point it out to you, you then asked me why I made the quote. Do you wonder then I doubt your self appraisal.

No accusation was made, but once the requested information was provided, the relevence is a perfectly valid question as it did not appear at all to apply to the argument at hand.

You cannot keep focus on a simple argument. Not only that when I confused you with someone else, you demanded an apology. I gave it. You have falsely accused me , of not making the quote and being vague yet no apology comes from you. Not only do I question your self appraisal but your integrity. The word hypocrite comes to mind.

Thanks very much for the apology.
It was a false accusation, and you made good on correcting it.
But to get such, I had to quote specifics and show quite obviously the falsity that was there.
Please provide such and you will have your apology.

You have not shown that free will exists. You have done little more than assert your belief. I am unimpressed both in your argument and in you as a man… Now if you want a Catholic exemplar , I would suggest Betterave. He has integrity and can put a logical argument together.

Without doubt there is a great deal to be learned from all other posters on this forum.
One thing I have learned is how to ignore personal attacks.
Another thing I have learned is that the more vicious the personal attacks, the more likely it is that the attackers argument holds no weight.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

What makes you think that the likelihood of going to Hell is far greater than going to Heaven? Probability does not even apply to persons with free will. Each choice we make is unrelated to what choices others make - if it is genuinely ours.

Do you think it would be better if no one had been created?

Because I don’t know a single Catholic besides my grandmother who actually follows every rule of the CC, such as NEVER missing mass for any reason besides sickness, NEVER masturbating, NEVER having pre-marital sex, etc. Most of these people also believe that confession, while it is good, is not necessary for absolution, so according to the CC, these people are going to Hell barring some last-minute act of perfect contrition. And these are people who were cradle Catholics and most still consider themselves to be Catholic! So these people, and probably at least 90% of all others, are walking around in a state of mortal sin all the time. Odds are that they will die unconfessed.

As to your 2nd question, I can’t really answer it. The Bible says that God saw His creation and said that it was “good”. Is it still good? The Bible does say that it would have been better for Judas had he never been born:

Mark 14:21
(Douay-Rheims Bible)
And the Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed. It were better for him, if that man had not been born.

So yes, I can definitely see why some people would choose not to have children out of fear for their souls. It is a huge responsibility, and anyone who knows their own weaknesses must tremble at the idea of passing them on to a child given the stakes.