If God knows all

[Shin]

If God knows our past and our future and what we are going to do, then why did he create those people who are going to end up in hell? If God knew that these people were destined for hell, then why did he create them? He knows what their destination is, so why did he let them be created if there is no changing what their future holds…

This question is really getting to me, please help me with some answers…

There’s nothing ultimately wrong with people being in Hell when they deserve to be there.

God’s desire is for people to go to Heaven, but His justice is also satisfied if they do not.

The saints and angels as well as God are perfectly joyous in Heaven, even while looking down upon Hell. And they find joy in justice being done.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Are you saying that it’s impossible to not exist, or that it’s impossible for anything to be worse than non-existence?

It depends on the context in which we use the term “worse”. I am not speaking of existence as a matter of taste: because something can be objectively good whether you like it or not. Of course you would rather cease to exist than exist in hell. Who in there right mind would want to suffer for all eternity. Subjectively speaking when comparing pain to nothing, one would be consistent in saying that it would be better that you had never been born at all rather than suffer that kind of pain for all eternity. This is only rational. But this kind of truth follows only from an analysis of pain abstracted from the ontological objective nature of existence as an act. I am talking about existence as a “metaphysical expression”. In other words i am taking about what existence is, fundamentally, outside of our human subjective taste.

Existence, by definition, is objective perfect goodness. Existence is love. Therefore to be is to participate in that which is fundamentally and perfectly good. Thus metaphysically speaking, it would be contradictory to say that it would be better not to exist, because to exist is a perfectly good thing. Therefore to say that non-existence is better is nothing more than to dabble in irrational meaninglessness even though it may appear to be the better option. In truth it is better to enter heaven than to cease existing or to suffer in hell; and it is metaphysically better to exist in hell, than to cease to exist.

We are made in the image of God, and we contingently reflect the nature of God in so far as we participate in the act of reality and know of it, and we have an eternal soul.

Hell is a necessary outcome of rebelling against the fundamental nature of existence. Sin is at war with existence. If you rebel against the supreme good in your heart, you may still be able to have material pleasures, but your rebellion presents a spiritual problem; because when the time comes for us to receive our new eternal bodies for which we were brought into existence to enjoy, you experience of that new nature will be a hell for you because your heart has rejected the root of all good things. Even though you do not desire suffering, and you might even prefer good to evil, you will suffer still because you heart is in rebellion against the true supreme good and is eternally unrepentant. You are married to your sin and pride.

"If thy hand offend thee cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: There their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, that having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched, where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:43-48).

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Existence, by definition, is objective perfect goodness. Existence is love. Therefore to be is to participate in that which is fundamentally and perfectly good. Thus metaphysically speaking, it would be contradictory to say that it would be better not to exist, because to exist is a perfectly good thing. Therefore to say that non-existence is better is nothing more than to dabble in irrational meaninglessness even though it may appear to be the better option. In truth it is better to enter heaven than to cease existing or to suffer in hell; and it is metaphysically better to exist in hell, than to cease to exist.

Interesting thoughts, and this all seems to make sense. But then, how do you make sense of this verse:

Matthew 26:24
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.

Here Jesus himself is saying it would be better for Judas if he had not even been born. Doesn’t that seem to contradict the idea that Hell is preferntial to nonexistence?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Interesting thoughts, and this all seems to make sense. But then, how do you make sense of this verse:

Matthew 26:24
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.

Here Jesus himself is saying it would be better for Judas if he had not even been born. Doesn’t that seem to contradict the idea that Hell is preferntial to nonexistence?

It depends on the context in which we use the term “worse”. I am not speaking of existence as a matter of taste: because something can be objectively good whether you like it or not. Of course you would rather cease to exist than exist in hell. Who in there right mind would want to suffer for all eternity. When speaking as a human person to other humans who tend to understand good by the measure of pleasure and pain, subjectively speaking when comparing pain to nothing, one would be consistent in saying that it would be better that you had never been born at all rather than suffer that kind of pain for all eternity. This is only rational. But this kind of truth follows only from an analysis of pain abstracted from the ontological objective nature of existence as an act. I am talking about existence as a “metaphysical expression”. In other words i am taking about what existence is, fundamentally, outside of our human subjective taste.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

There are different levels of truth, some of which are only true given a certain context. Some truths are relatively true or time dependent. What Jesus said was not intended to be accepted as a metaphysical truth, but rather it was a way of expressing the suffering of hell as something that ought not to be preferred. Abstracted from other ontological considerations, it is true that had not Judas been born, he would be better of given a particular context. But Jesus could not have meant this literally as something that is ontologically true about reality; since if Judas had not been born, he would never have been created by God because the only people that are born are those who God has created. God only knows that which God has created. In which case, it would be meaningless for God to talk of a person being better off if that person never existed in history in the first place. Jesus is speaking past tense. He is speaking after the fact of Judas’ existence. Thus even if it were true that Judas would be better off had he not existed, that is only true after the fact of committing the sin; and by that time Judas has already existed; and that can’t be changed.

 

[fhansen]

Interesting thoughts, and this all seems to make sense. But then, how do you make sense of this verse:

Matthew 26:24
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.

Here Jesus himself is saying it would be better for Judas if he had not even been born. Doesn’t that seem to contradict the idea that Hell is preferntial to nonexistence?

It’s possible that the person, themselves, would still prefer existence to the alternative.

 

[ddarko]

Interesting thoughts, and this all seems to make sense. But then, how do you make sense of this verse:

Matthew 26:24
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.

Here Jesus himself is saying it would be better for Judas if he had not even been born. Doesn’t that seem to contradict the idea that Hell is preferntial to nonexistence?

I believe this is known to be a metaphorical way of speaking during the time of Jesus on the graveness of an action. Jesus does not mean literally that HE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BORN. This is probably another good passage to highlight the dangers of improper biblical exegesis by someone who lacks historical knowledge of language expressions during that time.

As an aside, where I am originally from (I am from a part of Asia), we still use such a phrase when someone leads a very bad life lol.

God Bless

 

[Windfish]

Houro, I am a recent revert to Catholicism. I’m 21 years-old, so I’m still learning. I have read so much of what atheists and theists have had to say (so, so much), and the only thing that has ever stumped me is the subject you are broaching with this thread. Atheists are not ever convincing because they do not put anything forth, so it’s a bit ironic that it would be theists that cause some niggling issues.

There are some good attempts at this thread, but I think MindOverMatter2 gets the closest because he (or she) is tackling just how alien the concept of timelessness or eternity is. I have a sense that those concepts would play a big part in answering your questions (and mine). I suggest going out and buying a good book, hopefully from a Catholic, on this subject.

In any case, I hope that you stick with it and struggle with it like me and not lose confidence in the faith.

 

[Houro]

Thanks Windfish and thanks everybody who gave me something to think about. I’ll continue to pray and think about this. I don’t think it has shaken my faith, as I believe it is healthy to question your faith, and so I will continue to grow.

Blessings everybody!

Pat

 

[richardacombs]

If God knows our past and our future and what we are going to do, then why did he create those people who are going to end up in hell? If God knew that these people were destined for hell, then why did he create them? He knows what their destination is, so why did he let them be created if there is no changing what their future holds…

This question is really getting to me, please help me with some answers…

Rather than attempt to tackle your question, a good one, with a ponderous reply, I refer you to a far better authority than I, a Church Father: Methodius in his “Concerning Free Will.” The text is available at newadvent.org/fathers/

If you read the diatribe carefully, I believe, it will provide you good insight.