If Hell exists, Having Children Is Evil

[PumpkinCookie]

Since the “Fear of Hell” thread will likely be closed soon, and seems to be an interminable debate, I thought I would bring up this aspect of the problem for examination as well. My argument is as follows:

1. To have a child causes a human life to exist.
2. Existence is the necessary condition upon which all outcomes are contingent.
3. An eternity in hell is the worst possible outcome of a human life.
4. There is at least a non-zero chance that any human being will spend eternity in hell.
5. Even partially causing a human life to attain the worst possible outcome is evil.

Therefore

1. Choosing to have a child is evil (since there is a non-zero chance that the child will experience the worst possible outcome in life).

Consider this illustration:

What if there were a lottery such that if one were to win the lottery, they would gain infinite money and happiness? To play the lottery, one must buy a ticket. One may buy as many tickets as one wants to increase one’s chances of winning the lottery, and it doesn’t cost any more to buy a thousand tickets than one ticket. The cost of even one ticket is that, if one loses the lottery, one will owe an infinite amount of money to the lottery commission and experience unending misery.

The lottery commission and previous known winners have said that few people win this lottery. No matter how many tickets one buys, if one does not have the right combination of tickets, one will lose the lottery.

Would you sign up your children for this game, knowing that they could very well be among the “losers” and thus experience unending debt and misery? Is it reasonable to play this game? Is it good to enter a child in this lottery?

In my illustration, the “tickets” are “good works” and “faith.” The “winners” go to heaven. The “losers” go to hell. We are all “playing the lottery” simply by being alive. Having a child “signs him or her up for the lottery.”

Given our knowledge of the situation, I submit that consciously choosing to have children and thus subjecting them to this situation is evil.

Before we get started, I am ready to concede that having sex without the knowledge of whether or not a child will be produced is less evil than purposely “trying to conceive.” Although, I would argue that choosing to have sex in the first place is evil in and of itself since it is known to cause children, and having children is evil per the argument offered above.

Please explain why I’m wrong.

 

[Captain_America]

I think you yourself need to parse through this.

 

[DCNBILL]

You are wrong because;

John 6: 37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me,
38 because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.
39 And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it [on] the last day.
40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him [on] the last day.”

So we have the assurance of Heaven through our Lord Jesus Christ who died for our sins, so if we do in fact “remain in Him” the chances of Heaven are assured and the ultimate prize is won.

Therefore bringing children into the world, having them baptized and teaching them the Faith is greatest gift we can give to the Father!

 

[Ignatius]

I thought I would bring up this aspect of the problem for examination as well. My argument is as follows:

Please explain why I’m wrong.

Your premise is wrong and your illustration don’t accurately represent the situation. When God created mankind he declared it “very Good”. People are a good think according to God, the statements of the environmental alarmists notwithstanding. Only those who choose to do so will go to hell, it doesn’t happen involuntarily.
The Highest good is achieved when the children are brought up rightly so they can achieve eternal joy and they will have children who will also attain eternal joy and so for all of the generations of time countless souls achieving the highest good.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Since the “Fear of Hell” thread will likely be closed soon, and seems to be an interminable debate, I thought I would bring up this aspect of the problem for examination as well. My argument is as follows:

1. To have a child causes a human life to exist.
2. Existence is the necessary condition upon which all outcomes are contingent.
3. An eternity in hell is the worst possible outcome of a human life.
4. There is at least a non-zero chance that any human being will spend eternity in hell.
5. Even partially causing a human life to attain the worst possible outcome is evil.

Therefore

1. Choosing to have a child is evil (since there is a non-zero chance that the child will experience the worst possible outcome in life).

Consider this illustration:

What if there were a lottery such that if one were to win the lottery, they would gain infinite money and happiness? To play the lottery, one must buy a ticket. One may buy as many tickets as one wants to increase one’s chances of winning the lottery, and it doesn’t cost any more to buy a thousand tickets than one ticket. The cost of even one ticket is that, if one loses the lottery, one will owe an infinite amount of money to the lottery commission and experience unending misery.

The lottery commission and previous known winners have said that few people win this lottery. No matter how many tickets one buys, if one does not have the right combination of tickets, one will lose the lottery.

Would you sign up your children for this game, knowing that they could very well be among the “losers” and thus experience unending debt and misery? Is it reasonable to play this game? Is it good to enter a child in this lottery?

In my illustration, the “tickets” are “good works” and “faith.” The “winners” go to heaven. The “losers” go to hell. We are all “playing the lottery” simply by being alive. Having a child “signs him or her up for the lottery.”

Given our knowledge of the situation, I submit that consciously choosing to have children and thus subjecting them to this situation is evil.

Before we get started, I am ready to concede that having sex without the knowledge of whether or not a child will be produced is less evil than purposely “trying to conceive.” Although, I would argue that choosing to have sex in the first place is evil in and of itself since it is known to cause children, and having children is evil per the argument offered above.

Please explain why I’m wrong.

How is this any difference than stating everyone dies - 100%, therefore no one should be born to spare them.

 

[Lou2U]

Since the “Fear of Hell” thread will likely be closed soon, and seems to be an interminable debate, I thought I would bring up this aspect of the problem for examination as well. My argument is as follows:

1. To have a child causes a human life to exist.
2. Existence is the necessary condition upon which all outcomes are contingent.
3. An eternity in hell is the worst possible outcome of a human life.
4. There is at least a non-zero chance that any human being will spend eternity in hell.
5. Even partially causing a human life to attain the worst possible outcome is evil.

Therefore

1. Choosing to have a child is evil (since there is a non-zero chance that the child will experience the worst possible outcome in life).

Consider this illustration:

What if there were a lottery such that if one were to win the lottery, they would gain infinite money and happiness? To play the lottery, one must buy a ticket. One may buy as many tickets as one wants to increase one’s chances of winning the lottery, and it doesn’t cost any more to buy a thousand tickets than one ticket. The cost of even one ticket is that, if one loses the lottery, one will owe an infinite amount of money to the lottery commission and experience unending misery.

The lottery commission and previous known winners have said that few people win this lottery. No matter how many tickets one buys, if one does not have the right combination of tickets, one will lose the lottery.

Would you sign up your children for this game, knowing that they could very well be among the “losers” and thus experience unending debt and misery? Is it reasonable to play this game? Is it good to enter a child in this lottery?

In my illustration, the “tickets” are “good works” and “faith.” The “winners” go to heaven. The “losers” go to hell. We are all “playing the lottery” simply by being alive. Having a child “signs him or her up for the lottery.”

Given our knowledge of the situation, I submit that consciously choosing to have children and thus subjecting them to this situation is evil.

Before we get started, I am ready to concede that having sex without the knowledge of whether or not a child will be produced is less evil than purposely “trying to conceive.” Although, I would argue that choosing to have sex in the first place is evil in and of itself since it is known to cause children, and having children is evil per the argument offered above.

Please explain why I’m wrong.

You are wrong because if the Catholic Church believed that having children is evil, birth control would be allowed and encouraged.

Lou

 

[Zachary]

1. There is at least a non-zero chance that any human being will spend eternity in hell.

Please explain why I’m wrong.

Because it isn’t a matter of chance. It’s a matter of choice.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

This kind of reminds me of the argument set forth from anti-religion people… They say that religion is telling a child how to believe and that its ‘brainwashing’, yet they don’t seem to understand that if one does not raise a child in a set religion, the chances of that child having any spirituality (that is of a known existing religion) is slim to none (or so I’ve heard, not sure about that being true, but…) . The time to teach a child religion is from youth- and is done so in order to educate the child about life… it is a preparation for life so that they can be autonomous.

Anyway, I see it as as similar argument… like don’t drive your car today because you might actually get into a car wreck, die or get maimed for life. Nothing (I mean you would not get anywhere ) would happen if you heeded it. Same as if no one had any children, then the opposite of going to hell (i.e. going to heaven, which is what God desires of all) would not happen as well.

Also the question you pose presents that people in and of themselves are not responsible for their choices in life. Yes, things happen, but its God who calls and we who choose to respond or not. Love can only work that way.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Since the “Fear of Hell” thread will likely be closed soon, and seems to be an interminable debate, I thought I would bring up this aspect of the problem for examination as well. My argument is as follows:

1. To have a child causes a human life to exist.

True

1. Existence is the necessary condition upon which all outcomes are contingent.

True…ish…

1. An eternity in hell is the worst possible outcome of a human life.

True

1. There is at least a non-zero chance that any human being will spend eternity in hell.

FALSE. As Zachary said, chance has nothing to do with it. It is all about choice

1. Even partially causing a human life to attain the worst possible outcome is evil.

FALSE.

It is only evil if it is willed. If I, through some misunderstanding or lack of knowledge lead another to sin, then while the sin is indeed evil, I am not wholly culpable for it. The sin is evil, but I am not necessarily evil for engaging in it because my will is not knowingly engaged against God. Partially causing it is unfortunate, it is woeful, and I will answer for it to the degree which I am culpable for it, but it is not in all cases evil.

Therefore

1. Choosing to have a child is evil (since there is a non-zero chance that the child will experience the worst possible outcome in life).

False, both on the grounds that premises four and five are wrong, and because it is ultimately that child’s own decisions which will determine their outcome. If they are eternally separated from God it is because they have chosen to be separated from him. Giving them the opportunity to make that decision is not evil. Rather, since God desires for us to love him, and love can only be real if it is freely given (through our choices), giving someone the opportunity to chose God is the ultimate good which we can give them in this life. If they chose against him that is their decision, but the outcome has no affect on the fact that giving them the choice is good.

Consider this illustration:

What if there were a lottery such that if one were to win the lottery, they would gain infinite money and happiness? To play the lottery, one must buy a ticket. One may buy as many tickets as one wants to increase one’s chances of winning the lottery, and it doesn’t cost any more to buy a thousand tickets than one ticket. The cost of even one ticket is that, if one loses the lottery, one will owe an infinite amount of money to the lottery commission and experience unending misery. ]

A faulty comparison. The lottery numbers cannot be arrived at logically; the lottery drawer is not on stage telling you what numbers will be chosen. The lottery system does not allow you to pick a new ticket if you change your mind about which number you want. The lottery system does not engage you in an active relationship and teach you about the best ways to go about picking your numbers. People who believe that picking the right religion is a matter of chance or luck have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of religion. Religion is about Truth, it can be weighed against reality and conclusions can be drawn about it. It is not something that you should walk into blindly, without any thought or consideration. It is something that you should spend your life considering, studying and discussing.

I won’t both addressing the rest of your post becuase it all deals with your faulty analogy.

To refuse to have children because they may chose against God is to ACTIVELY act against God’s will. God KNEW Adam and Eve would chose against him, and yet he still chose to create them. God KNEW that he would suffer horrendously and die a terrible death, just to give the people who constantly turn their back on him the ability to repent and come back home. He still created us and allowed us to do that to Him. God allows us an unlimited number of chances to come back to him in our lives, and never stops calling out to us to try to bring us to him.

When we chose not to listen, WE have chosen evil; not the parents who bore us, or the God who loves us. Our parents are culpable for our choices inasmuch as they direct and influence our development and views, but the final outcome of our lives remains the result of our active wills.

 

[phil19034]

Your position is wrong because:

1. the chances of going to heaven are FAR better than winning the lottery
2. salvation isn’t random like the lottery. The only people who go to hell choose to go there by making the choice to sin and not repent. They separate themselves from God.
3. religion is based on beliefs and morality that can be taught and understood. The lottery is based on chance and chance alone.
4. Everyone can learn how to become a saint. However, no one can learn how to pick a winning lottery ticket.

The above are just SOME of the many arguments around why your logic is faulty. You need a far better example than the lottery.

 

[oliver927]

Because it isn’t a matter of chance. It’s a matter of choice.

Absolutely! God does not roll dice to see who goes to heaven or hell. Each person chooses where they go by either accepting or rejecting God.

 

[Shin]

'Rejoice not in ungodly children, if they be multiplied: neither be delighted in them, if the fear of God be not with them.

Credit not their life, and respect not their labours. For better is one that feareth God, than a thousand impious children.

And it is better to die without children, than to leave ungodly children.’

Ecclesiasticus 16:1-4

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Since the “Fear of Hell” thread will likely be closed soon, and seems to be an interminable debate, I thought I would bring up this aspect of the problem for examination as well. My argument is as follows:

1. To have a child causes a human life to exist.
2. Existence is the necessary condition upon which all outcomes are contingent.
3. An eternity in hell is the worst possible outcome of a human life.
4. There is at least a non-zero chance that any human being will spend eternity in hell.
5. Even partially causing a human life to attain the worst possible outcome is evil.

Therefore

1. Choosing to have a child is evil (since there is a non-zero chance that the child will experience the worst possible outcome in life).

Consider this illustration:

What if there were a lottery such that if one were to win the lottery, they would gain infinite money and happiness? To play the lottery, one must buy a ticket. One may buy as many tickets as one wants to increase one’s chances of winning the lottery, and it doesn’t cost any more to buy a thousand tickets than one ticket. The cost of even one ticket is that, if one loses the lottery, one will owe an infinite amount of money to the lottery commission and experience unending misery.

The lottery commission and previous known winners have said that few people win this lottery. No matter how many tickets one buys, if one does not have the right combination of tickets, one will lose the lottery.

Would you sign up your children for this game, knowing that they could very well be among the “losers” and thus experience unending debt and misery? Is it reasonable to play this game? Is it good to enter a child in this lottery?

In my illustration, the “tickets” are “good works” and “faith.” The “winners” go to heaven. The “losers” go to hell. We are all “playing the lottery” simply by being alive. Having a child “signs him or her up for the lottery.”

Given our knowledge of the situation, I submit that consciously choosing to have children and thus subjecting them to this situation is evil.

Before we get started, I am ready to concede that having sex without the knowledge of whether or not a child will be produced is less evil than purposely “trying to conceive.” Although, I would argue that choosing to have sex in the first place is evil in and of itself since it is known to cause children, and having children is evil per the argument offered above.

Please explain why I’m wrong.

1. is only somewhat true. It is evil to push the life towards a worse place than it would have otherwise had. It is not evil to create a life which will then, through other factors, attain a worse position than it otherwise might have had.

Further, to exist in hell is less good than to exist in heaven, but to exist is still, in itself, good (otherwise there would be annihilation rather than hell, by the way). So being responsible for the existence of a person (who, unfortunately, later chose to be in hell) is a good thing, but the entirely separate fact of being responsible for the events that pushed them towards hell is a bad thing. You can generalize this - to be responsible for something that is not as good as it could have been, but still somewhat good (even if minimally good) is still to be responsible for a good.

Or from another direction: Think of helping to fund a rescue operation to rescue trapped miners that fails horribly, resulting in the deaths of the rescuers and the trapped alike. Worst possible outcome. But assuming that you had no reason to expect such a catastrophic failure (the people involved certainly had the abilities to carry off the operation correctly, but just didn’t succeed for various reasons), could your action of helping fund it be considered evil?

Thus 6 doesn’t follow. (In fact, 6 wouldn’t follow even if 5 were entirely true, because a probability of evil - insofar as probability even applies, which in this case is only in the most basic sense of “it is possible for a person to go to hell, and a child is a person” and not in the sense of there being randomness involved - is not the same as evil, but I think the failure of 5 is the more important point.)

 

[madtom]

I think your post provokes an interesting philosophical debate, however your lottery analogy is completely off-base. The lottery is based solely on luck, while spending eternity in heaven or hell is not a matter of luck. Additionally, only those with a winning ticket can win the lottery, however it is entirely possible that EVERYONE can get into heaven.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Please explain why I’m wrong.

Since God told us to be fruitful and multiply, and God is all good all the time, then it must be good to have children.

 

[AKDee]

Life is inherently good. I would say the evil would be if the parents failed to impart on their children a religious formation so that the child would choose Heaven and not Hell.

The OP’s argument is an argument against not just existence but, more to the point, free will.

 

[10gr8kids]

Because it isn’t a matter of chance. It’s a matter of choice.

This^^.

 

[madtom]

This^^.

interesting that your approval of a post saying it isn’t a matter of chance would be your post # 7-7-7

 

[Memaw]

Since the “Fear of Hell” thread will likely be closed soon, and seems to be an interminable debate, I thought I would bring up this aspect of the problem for examination as well. My argument is as follows:

1. To have a child causes a human life to exist.
2. Existence is the necessary condition upon which all outcomes are contingent.
3. An eternity in hell is the worst possible outcome of a human life.
4. There is at least a non-zero chance that any human being will spend eternity in hell.
5. Even partially causing a human life to attain the worst possible outcome is evil.

Therefore

1. Choosing to have a child is evil (since there is a non-zero chance that the child will experience the worst possible outcome in life).

Consider this illustration:

What if there were a lottery such that if one were to win the lottery, they would gain infinite money and happiness? To play the lottery, one must buy a ticket. One may buy as many tickets as one wants to increase one’s chances of winning the lottery, and it doesn’t cost any more to buy a thousand tickets than one ticket. The cost of even one ticket is that, if one loses the lottery, one will owe an infinite amount of money to the lottery commission and experience unending misery.

The lottery commission and previous known winners have said that few people win this lottery. No matter how many tickets one buys, if one does not have the right combination of tickets, one will lose the lottery.

Would you sign up your children for this game, knowing that they could very well be among the “losers” and thus experience unending debt and misery? Is it reasonable to play this game? Is it good to enter a child in this lottery?

In my illustration, the “tickets” are “good works” and “faith.” The “winners” go to heaven. The “losers” go to hell. We are all “playing the lottery” simply by being alive. Having a child “signs him or her up for the lottery.”

Given our knowledge of the situation, I submit that consciously choosing to have children and thus subjecting them to this situation is evil.

Before we get started, I am ready to concede that having sex without the knowledge of whether or not a child will be produced is less evil than purposely “trying to conceive.” Although, I would argue that choosing to have sex in the first place is evil in and of itself since it is known to cause children, and having children is evil per the argument offered above.

Please explain why I’m wrong.

Sounds like the making of an evil Heresy. Or maybe and old one rearing its ugly head. You need some real Spiritual help. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Please explain why I’m wrong.

Where you are wrong is that God invited Adam and Eve to increase and multiply. So God cannot be the inspiration FOR AN EVIL DEED.

Moreover, each person is responsible for his own salvation. When we get to heaven or hell, we cannot praise or blame our parents for the choice we have made.