If Hell exists, Having Children Is Evil

[tonyrey]

To me, eternal hell is much, much worse than “nothing.” I understand your point but simply disagree. If you are right, then your refutation seems to hold.

You have not taken into account the compensations of hell.

The argument that Jesus’ statements must be hyperbole because if they weren’t God shouldn’t have created the doomed people is begging the question, in my opinion. One of the corollaries of my thesis is in fact that God shouldn’t have created the people who end up in hell because that would be morally wrong as well.

We are not isolated individuals but members of the human family. A panoramic view is more reasonable than one that is atomistic and chronological. Why should ancestors have priority over their descendants who are penalised for no valid reason whatsoever?

Again, the RCC does not say that the punishments of hell are self-inflicted. I’m not sure whether an RC believer is “allowed” to hold that position or not.

It is evident from the teaching of Jesus that “These are the things which defile a man”:“evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies”. To defile oneself amounts to punishing oneself with the inevitable consequences of antisocial and criminal behaviour.

Again, please tell me how “bodies” can exist without time or space? The RCC insists that we will have bodies both in heaven and hell. Can you give an example of a body existing without time or space? Further, is such a thing rationally coherent? Why?

We don’t exist solely in time and space because we have a soul as well as a body. The issue is hell and what happens to the soul - and that determines what happens to the body.

Your argument leads to a conclusion you will deeply regret. It means God is responsible for all the unnecessary suffering in this world for which the innocent victims can never be adequately compensated.

…
I do not regret this conclusion, and I would in fact believe it (given hell). If eternal hell exists, Ivan Karamazov is exactly right.

However, I am skeptical about the assertion that there is any such thing as “unnecessary suffering” (if eternal hell does not exist). I do believe God is responsible for…absolutely everything, since he is both omniscient and omnipotent. I also recognize that there are evils in this world that seem utterly gratuitous or “unnecessary” but I do not believe that these things actually are unnecessary because I don’t have enough evidence to judgment. I believe that this is the argument offered to Job by God. God asks Job a series of questions about his knowledge of nature and Job admits his ignorance before the divine knowledge. I believe that God is showing Job that just as he is ignorant of nature, he is ignorant of the totality of the “moral universe” and thus unable to judge God’s will as “evil.”

In that case there is no reason to doubt God’s goodness with regard to hell. We should give Jesus the benefit of the doubt and take His words at their face value.

Although God is ultimately responsible for absolutely everything, this doesn’t mean we have no free will at all or that we’re “off the hook” morally speaking. I believe we make real choices and are responsible for our actions (to some extent). Because of this, we do deserve punishments and rewards, both in this life and the next. I think it is God’s job to “harmonize” the moral universe when we put it out of harmony. You know what we call this process of wavering between “consonance” and “dissonance?” Music. I call this wavering and unsteadiness in the moral universe “life.” In the world to come, the will or will music will end in a glorious and continuous harmony. However, maybe that harmonious finality wouldn’t be nearly so beautiful without the contrasting fluctuation of dissonance which preceded it in this world. Just a conjecture, you won’t hear any “infallible truths” issuing from my mouth.

The very fact that we deserve punishment and reward in this life and the next is further support for belief in hell but the concept of **unmitigated **suffering is inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father.

I don’t believe in libertarian free will in the sense that our choices are totally free from any causes other than our pure intent or will. I don’t pretend to know how our will and God’s will interact, but I think it is some kind of co-operation. I need to think more and do more research about this.

Your main objection to hell is that it is eternal rather than for a limited amount of time yet time and space do not exist in the next world - which makes it impossible to understand the exact nature of hell. Jesus used the word “everlasting” to convey finality rather than duration - or perhaps intensity because, as you agree, we deserve punishment and it should be proportionate. One thing is certain: it is a mistake to interpret the description of hell literally because it is intended to warn everyone regardless of their degree of intelligence or education that evil incurs punishment in this life and the next. Systematic atrocities on the scale of the Holocaust inevitably lead to greater misery for the perpetrators. Their state of mind corresponds to their degree of inhumanity. The concept of defilement sums it up perfectly. They poison themselves with their own venom and suffer accordingly.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

We are not isolated individuals but members of the human family. A panoramic view is more reasonable than one that is atomistic and chronological. Why should ancestors have priority over their descendants who are penalised for no valid reason whatsoever?

Again, one who has not ever nor will exist can’t be penalized in any meaningful sense.

It is evident from the teaching of Jesus that “These are the things which defile a man”:“evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies”. To defile oneself amounts to punishing oneself with the inevitable consequences of antisocial and criminal behaviour.

Yes, I agree that we are our own “punishers” in this life. However, it doesn’t seem like the eternal hell proposed for belief by the RCC is merely an eternal continuation of some unhappy lives. Even if it is, it would still be heinously evil to allow such a state to continue indefinitely.

In that case there is no reason to doubt God’s goodness with regard to hell. We should give Jesus the benefit of the doubt and take His words at their face value.

I no longer believe in Jesus at all so his words have no force in my life. I do not believe he speaks for God. But, we’re talking about the RCC’s teaching about hell so it doesn’t really matter what we think Jesus says anyway. We only know what Jesus says based upon our trust in the RCC. Further, please, how can eternal torment not be a gratuitous evil? I believe we do have enough evidence to condemn it as an “unnecessary evil” because it can’t even conceivably serve a purpose. If you want me to make a case for how it is certainly gratuitous, I will do so. I’d have to argue that it is logically impossible for hell to not be a gratuitous evil. This will be difficult and take some time but I intuit that it can be done.

The very fact that we deserve punishment and reward in this life and the next is further support for belief in hell but the concept of **unmitigated **suffering is inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father.

Yes. This is what I’m saying (in part): hell is unmitigated suffering. It is incompatible with a loving father God. Further, the choice to expose a child to the possibility of eternal hell is not compatible with responsible and loving parenthood. This is my assertion, and it seems you agree at least partially? Probably not, you’ll just say that the suffering of hell is “mitigated” by “compensations.” I just have to flatly disagree with that assertion. I see no evidence for it based upon the RCC’s teachings on hell.

Your main objection to hell is that it is eternal rather than for a limited amount of time yet time and space do not exist in the next world - which makes it impossible to understand the exact nature of hell. Jesus used the word “everlasting” to convey finality rather than duration - or perhaps intensity because, as you agree, we deserve punishment and it should be proportionate. One thing is certain: it is a mistake to interpret the description of hell literally because it is intended to warn everyone regardless of their degree of intelligence or education that evil incurs punishment in this life and the next. Systematic atrocities on the scale of the Holocaust inevitably lead to greater misery for the perpetrators. Their state of mind corresponds to their degree of inhumanity. The concept of defilement sums it up perfectly. They poison themselves with their own venom and suffer accordingly.

If time and space don’t “exist” in the next world, then neither can bodies. Full stop. Yet, the RCC insists that people have bodies in both heaven and hell. This is incoherent. If it is “impossible to understand the exact nature of hell” then how can it be a fully informed choice embraced by a fully free will as you have argued previously?

I disagree that the perpetrators of the Holocaust suffered more than the victims! That seems to me to be an outrageous and offensive statement. I know you mean no offense but other readers may object! Kant argues that God must exist because it seems obvious that those who are happy in this world are not always good, and those who are good are not always happy. This disturbs our intuitions, and we long for “resolution” to this problem. God is the solution. He will set it right. I have no doubt that the perpetrators of the Holocaust will be punished most severely…but certainly not with eternal torment!!

Thanks for the discussion. I wish I could buy you a beer (if you felt so inclined). Your efforts are noted, and I think a rational person can believe what you seem to believe. I think we just have some fundamental disagreements about a few things which would prevent our total agreement.

 

[tonyrey]

Again, one who has not ever nor will exist can’t be penalized in any meaningful sense.

Persons that exist are the only possible persons. From God’s point of view the entire human race from start to finish is not a fantasy but a fact. It also depends on us whether certain individuals exist or not. Not to have children amounts to depriving some one of the opportunity to exist. That is wrong if it is due to selfishness because if everyone remained childless the human race would become extinct - which is contrary to God’s purpose in giving us the power to reproduce.

Yes, I agree that we are our own “punishers” in this life. However, it doesn’t seem like the eternal hell proposed for belief by the RCC is merely an eternal continuation of some unhappy lives. Even if it is, it would still be heinously evil to allow such a state to continue indefinitely.

To remain the same persons implies continuity between this life and the next. If we make ourselves unhappy because we prefer to indulge in our vices it would be very strange if we changed utterly. In fact our eternal destiny depends to a large extent on how we have chosen to live on earth. Hell is not evil if we are prepared to suffer the consequences for the satisfaction we obtain. Total independence and freedom from obligations are not insignificant. And the fundamental purpose of life is to shape our own destiny rather than be compelled to go to heaven like puppets.

I no longer believe in Jesus at all so his words have no force in my life. I do not believe he speaks for God.

Then what is the rational foundation of morality?

But, we’re talking about the RCC’s teaching about hell so it doesn’t really matter what we think Jesus says anyway. We only know what Jesus says based upon our trust in the RCC.

It is the other way around. The truth of His teaching shines by its own light. Do you deny that unselfish love is more important than anything else - and there is no greater love than sacrificing your life for others?

Further, please, how can eternal torment not be a gratuitous evil? I believe we do have enough evidence to condemn it as an “unnecessary evil” because it can’t even conceivably serve a purpose.

It serves the purpose of having the power to shape our own destiny rather than be God’s slaves. Why a limit to our freedom if we are prepared to accept the consequences? Those in hell have the courage of their convictions. They wouldn’t agree their punishment is gratuitous. They know full well it is what they deserve. They may be in a fool’s paradise but they prefer it to being in a “sycophant’s paradise”! There is some logic in Satan’s point of view; otherwise he would be an idiot!

If you want me to make a case for how it is certainly gratuitous, I will do so. I’d have to argue that it is logically impossible for hell to not be a gratuitous evil. This will be difficult and take some time but I intuit that it can be done.

I look forward to your defence of God by diminishing the power of evil to ultimate insignificance. In a sense I’m the devil’s advocate by supporting his and his followers’ independence for all eternity whereas you would terminate it for once and for all…

Yes. This is what I’m saying (in part): hell is unmitigated suffering. It is incompatible with a loving father God. Further, the choice to expose a child to the possibility of eternal hell is not compatible with responsible and loving parenthood. This is my assertion, and it seems you agree at least partially? Probably not, you’ll just say that the suffering of hell is “mitigated” by “compensations.” I just have to flatly disagree with that assertion. I see no evidence for it based upon the RCC’s teachings on hell.

The Church doesn’t claim to give a detailed description of hell;neither do I. I am just deducing from what happens to those who abuse their power in this world. The criminal mentality is not conducive to peace of mind and harmony with others. The lust for power also drives people to their own destruction.

If time and space don’t “exist” in the next world, then neither can bodies. Full stop. Yet, the RCC insists that people have bodies in both heaven and hell. This is incoherent.

Glorified bodies are not beyond the power of the Creator of the universe.

If it is “impossible to understand the exact nature of hell” then how can it be a fully informed choice embraced by a fully free will as you have argued previously?

There is a difference between “in this life” and “after death”…

I disagree that the perpetrators of the Holocaust suffered more than the victims! That seems to me to be an outrageous and offensive statement. I know you mean no offense but other readers may object! Kant argues that God must exist because it seems obvious that those who are happy in this world are not always good, and those who are good are not always happy. This disturbs our intuitions, and we long for “resolution” to this problem. God is the solution. He will set it right. I have no doubt that the perpetrators of the Holocaust will be punished most severely…but certainly not with eternal torment!!

Not “suffered” but “will suffer”! The unbearable agony of guilt drove Judas to kill himself.

Thanks for the discussion. I wish I could buy you a beer (if you felt so inclined). Your efforts are noted, and I think a rational person can believe what you seem to believe. I think we just have some fundamental disagreements about a few things which would prevent our total agreement.

Thank you for your kind wish. I’m enjoying our discussion which has made me delve more deeply into the nature of hell. Eventually we’ll know the truth without having to have faith - although love is a form of knowledge…

 

[tonyrey]

Correction:

Persons that exist are the only possible persons. From God’s point of view the entire human race from start to finish is not a fantasy but a fact.

Persons that exist now are not the only persons. From God’s point of view the entire human race from start to finish is not a possibility but a fact.

 

[tonyrey]

Should we have children if we know they are going to reject us? The answer is clearly “Yes” because it would be selfish to expect them to obey us simply because we have brought them into the world. Provided they don’t harm us they have the right to make their own decisions when they grow up. Even though they couldn’t ask to be born they still have to endure “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”. In some cases the drawbacks of life outweigh its advantages and for a person who doesn’t believe there is life after death it would be better not to have been born - and not to have children. For those who believe we choose how to live forever it is wonderful to be able to share the opportunity with others.

 

[oldcelt]

Correction:

Persons that exist now are not the only persons. From God’s point of view the entire human race from start to finish is not a possibility but a fact.

And, according to Christianity, all their outcomes are infallibly foreknown by their creator.

 

[tonyrey]

And, according to Christianity, all their outcomes are infallibly foreknown by their creator.

Knowledge doesn’t entail causality! No one has explained the mechanism by which it could. Nor is insight isn’t equivalent to coercion…

 

[tonyrey]

Should we have children if we know they are going to reject us? The answer is clearly “Yes” because it would be selfish to expect them to obey us simply because we have brought them into the world. Provided they don’t harm us they have the right to make their own decisions when they grow up. Even though they couldn’t ask to be born they still have to endure “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”. In some cases the drawbacks of life outweigh its advantages and for a person who doesn’t believe there is life after death it would be better not to have been born - and not to have children. For those who believe we choose how to live forever it is wonderful to be able to share the opportunity with others.

How could we possibly be given the choice to exist if we don’t exist?:juggle:

 

[oldcelt]

Knowledge doesn’t entail causality! No one has explained the mechanism by which it could. Nor is insight isn’t equivalent to coercion…

But when you add the creative act to absolute foreknowledge, the moral responsibility becomes clear. To knowingly create a being that will be condemned is not an act of love…quite the opposite.

Just maybe, the foreknowledge and creative acts don’t extend as far as we were taught.

John

 

[Ignatius]

And, according to Christianity, all their outcomes are infallibly foreknown by their creator.

And according to Catholic Teaching, each and every person will be given the Grace and Opportunity for salvation.

 

[tonyrey]

But when you add the creative act to absolute foreknowledge, the moral responsibility becomes clear. To knowingly create a being that will be condemned is not an act of love…quite the opposite.

Just maybe, the foreknowledge and creative acts don’t extend as far as we were taught.

John

God condemns no one; we condemn ourselves if we neglect others when they need our help, advice, sympathy and love. No amount of foreknowledge or creativity can alter that fact.

 

[oldcelt]

God condemns no one; we condemn ourselves if we neglect others when they need our help, advice, sympathy and love. No amount of foreknowledge or creativity can alter that fact.

Heard it all before Tony. I respect your faith, but foreknowledge+creation= causation…it is inescapable logic.

 

[tonyrey]

Heard it all before Tony. I respect your faith, but foreknowledge+creation= causation…it is inescapable logic.

John, you need to explain how Divine knowledge compels us to behave in a particular way. Why is it impossible for the Creator of the entire universe to enable us to choose what to believe and how to behave? Are we entitled to impose limitations on God’s power?

 

[DCNBILL]

John, you need to explain how Divine knowledge compels us to behave in a particular way. Why is it impossible for the Creator of the entire universe to enable us to choose what to believe and how to behave? Are we entitled to impose limitations on God’s power?

Or to impose a human sense of morality on the Creator.

 

[DCNBILL]

You mentioned that you thought it would be productive for me to state what I believe about the afterlife. If you care, here is my view of the afterlife:

When we die, we go to the realm of the dead where are…dead. Only those who are truly utterly evil will remain dead. God will resurrect everyone at the end of history and judge all of us. Those who are sort of evil (pretty much everyone) will be punished, purified, and restored. Those who are truly righteous (very, very few in my estimation) will be rewarded and restored. Everyone will have eternal life in peace in the “World to Come” after the coming of the Messiah. I have no idea what the “World to Come” will be like, but I have faith that it will be wonderful, and that God will be there somehow. As I learn more, I’m sure my beliefs will change accordingly.

Hi PC:tiphat: I know that I have been gone a while and this was a few pages back but I just want to comment on this part of your response to me.

I feel that you have a pretty close concept of the afterlife as a Catholic would, except for the “evil” remaining dead.

Three comments,

1. It is the belief of the Catholic Church that a person, no matter what they have done on Earth, if it was murder or any evils that you could imagine, can have a conversion in their hearts and be saved.
2. We do not know the mind of God. If he chooses to create something (someone) that has a rational mind and can choose to either accept their Creator or to reject their Creator then this situation allows for love to be possible between the Creator and the created and this is the only system that could allow for love.
3. God creates all of us with eternal souls, a level playing field, why would a creature who rejects their Creator here on Earth want to spend eternity with Him?

 

[tonyrey]

Are we entitled to impose limitations on God’s power?

I think deists believe God is amoral but I may be mistaken. At all events we’re not justified in restricting His power to fit our conclusions!

 

[oldcelt]

I think deists believe God is amoral but I may be mistaken. At all events we’re not justified in restricting His power to fit our conclusions!

You are not mistaken Tony…morals are beneath a creator to modern Deists.

John

 

[oldcelt]

John, you need to explain how Divine knowledge compels us to behave in a particular way. Why is it impossible for the Creator of the entire universe to enable us to choose what to believe and how to behave? Are we entitled to impose limitations on God’s power?

No, but consider the possibility that the creator…in all it’s power…was not concerned with such things. I think it fits our world better than the other notions.

John

 

[tonyrey]

No, but consider the possibility that the creator…in all it’s power…was not concerned with such things. I think it fits our world better than the other notions.

John

Do you mean it chooses not be concerned? Or doesn’t it have the power? Is it even aware of what it is doing?

 

[tonyrey]

You are not mistaken Tony…morals are beneath a creator to modern Deists. John

What is superior to morality?