If Hell exists, Having Children Is Evil

[PRmerger]

Of course, your God knew I would say that…mine didn’t.

Is my God responsible for your saying this?

 

[oldcelt]

Is my God responsible for your saying this?

Only I hold the responsibility. I was created by the act of two humans…I have been molded by my experiences…I act and speak freely. I am on my own.

 

[oldcelt]

Declaration on Religious Freedom, from Pope Paul VI:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

1. It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man’s response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will.(8) This doctrine is contained in the word of God and it was constantly proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church.(7) The act of faith is of its very nature a free act. Man, redeemed by Christ the Savior and through Christ Jesus called to be God’s adopted son,(9) cannot give his adherence to God revealing Himself unless, under the drawing of the Father,(10) he offers to God the reasonable and free submission of faith. It is therefore completely in accord with the nature of faith that in matters religious every manner of coercion on the part of men should be excluded. In consequence, the principle of religious freedom makes no small contribution to the creation of an environment in which men can without hindrance be invited to the Christian faith, embrace it of their own free will, and profess it effectively in their whole manner of life.

Does the bolded section, just one example, really stand up to scrutiny?

 

[tonyrey]

While i speak respectfully of your faith, even when pointing out what I view as flaws, you use terms such as nonsense when referring to my belief system. On here that is known as the ban trap…I respond in kind and get tossed…not gonna happen.

It isn’t your belief system I attacked but atheistic materialism (which is** incompatible with deism**) - and you’re certainly not going to be banned for that! In fact atheists are not banned simply for being atheists. Some have been on this forum for several years.

Secondly, you consistently speak of other views as being bereft of meaning. That leads me to think that you believe that only your beliefs can bring fulfillment, peace…whatever term you wish to apply. Let me assure you…you could not be more mistaken.

My precise words were:

If persons are derived from the impersonal, purpose from the purposeless and meaning from the meaningless there is a whole mass of contradictions which don’t make sense.

This is not a personal attack on you but an objective statement of fact, not about “other views” but one particular ideology. It certainly doesn’t imply that only my beliefs can bring fulfillment and peace. Quite the reverse. I’m quite sure sincere beliefs of any description bring fulfillment and peace provided they’re not evil or illogical. We’re all ignorant in some way or other and it is presumptuous to think we never make mistakes.

So let me conclude my conversation with you on this subject by returning to the OP: In my view, if hell exists, which I do not believe, it would be the height of selfishness to risk a new life by bringing it into such a system. Of course, your God knew I would say that…mine didn’t.

I believe it would be the height of selfishness to assume our descendants are so evil they’re excluded from life in heaven. If our parents had that belief we wouldn’t be on this forum! Given the horrific amount of evil in the world the possibility of hell cannot be discounted altogether. If your view is correct no one is ever justified in having children…

 

[oldcelt]

It isn’t your belief system I attacked but atheistic materialism (which is** incompatible with deism**) - and you’re certainly not going to be banned for that! In fact atheists are not banned simply for being atheists. Some have been on this forum for several years.

My precise words were:
This is not a personal attack on you but an objective statement of fact, not about “other views” but one particular ideology. It certainly doesn’t imply that only my beliefs can bring fulfillment and peace. Quite the reverse. I’m quite sure sincere beliefs of any description bring fulfillment and peace provided they’re not evil or illogical. We’re all ignorant in some way or other and it is presumptuous to think we never make mistakes.

I believe it would be the height of selfishness to assume our descendants are so evil they’re excluded from life in heaven. If our parents had that belief we wouldn’t be on this forum! Given the horrific amount of evil in the world the possibility of hell cannot be discounted altogether. If your view is correct no one is ever justified in having children…

We are not at a complete impasse. However, I think that you and I have gone as far as we can on this subject. To use your own words: “In your belief system nonsense has the last word whereas the teaching of the Church is eminently reasonable.”

Be well my fellow human. Right or wrong, we certainly share that.

John

 

[PRmerger]

Only I hold the responsibility. I was created by the act of two humans…I have been molded by my experiences…I act and speak freely. I am on my own.

Egg-zactly.

My God bears no responsibility for what you post.

Now, extrapolate that to the topic at hand.

 

[PRmerger]

Does the bolded section, just one example, really stand up to scrutiny?

Not sure what you’re asking.

 

[tonyrey]

We are not at a complete impasse. However, I think that you and I have gone as far as we can on this subject. To use your own words: “In your belief system nonsense has the last word whereas the teaching of the Church is eminently reasonable.”

Nonsense doesn’t have the last word in your belief system with regard to God having planned some aspects of creation -

the creator did not/does not plan every aspect of creation

• but it does in attributing **all **development to physical causes. Apart from that you’re on the right track. All this talk about Hell has left the prospect of Heaven sadly neglected…

Be well my fellow human. Right or wrong, we certainly share that.

John

You and I share far more than we realise when all is said and done. Otherwise why would we both be on this forum?

 

[oldcelt]

Not sure what you’re asking.

A simple perusal of history should answer that question. The Church, churches did not always believe in freedom of religious or non-religious choice. It was an either or for many centuries. You know that…I know that.
Pope Paul wrote a beautiful, but delusional document. All one need do is compare the facts to what the good man wrote.
Perhaps reality is what Francis is attempting to bring to the faithful.
I wish him well.

 

[oldcelt]

Nonsense doesn’t have the last word in your belief system with regard to God having planned some aspects of creation - - but it does in attributing **all **development to physical causes. Apart from that you’re on the right track. All this talk about Hell has left the prospect of Heaven sadly neglected…

You and I share far more than we realise when all is said and done. Otherwise why would we both be on this forum?

Then, why did you write it?

Regarding your final statement…you are correct in my view…we are both searching.

 

[PRmerger]

A simple perusal of history should answer that question. The Church, churches did not always believe in freedom of religious or non-religious choice. It was an either or for many centuries. You know that…I know that.

Absolutely not.

The CC has NEVER taught that we should be coerced into baptism, into belief, into faith.

That some Catholics may have behaved contrary to the teaching against coercion is not relevant here.

The Church herself never taught against religious freedom.

Pope Paul wrote a beautiful, but delusional document. All one need do is compare the facts to what the good man wrote.
Perhaps reality is what Francis is attempting to bring to the faithful.
I wish him well.

Careful, oldcelt. It is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics. But calling something that Pope Paul VI wrote “delusional” could easily be construed as being contemptuous of Catholicism–something which is not permitted here.

 

[oldcelt]

Absolutely not.

The CC has NEVER taught that we should be coerced into baptism, into belief, into faith.

That some Catholics may have behaved contrary to the teaching against coercion is not relevant here.

The Church herself never taught against religious freedom.

Careful, oldcelt. It is good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics. But calling something that Pope Paul VI wrote “delusional” could easily be construed as being contemptuous of Catholicism–something which is not permitted here.

I, in no way am contemptuous. Pope Paul is the second Pope I remember. He was a gentle and caring Shepard of his flock. However, what he wrote does not fit with reality. If it did, there would be no such term as heresy.
If I was in the middle ages, my fate would be somewhat unpleasant…and you know that.
tudorhistory.org/primary/papalbull.html

 

[tonyrey]

oldcelt;13006000*:

Nonsense doesn’t have the last word in your belief system with regard to God having planned some aspects of creation - - but it does in attributing all development to physical causes.

• Then, why did you write it?
  It was a response to the post in which you attributed** all **development to physical causes:

We look to the world around us for answers, archaeology, paleontology, physics, etc. .

Whereas previously you had implied that was not the case.

Apart from that you’re on the right track. All this talk about Hell has left the prospect of Heaven sadly neglected… You and I share far more than we realise when all is said and done. Otherwise why would we both be on this forum?

Regarding your final statement…you are correct in my view…we are both searching.

We are all searching in some way or other…

 

[tonyrey]

I, in no way am contemptuous. Pope Paul is the second Pope I remember. He was a gentle and caring Shepard of his flock. However, what he wrote does not fit with reality. If it did, there would be no such term as heresy.
If I was in the middle ages, my fate would be somewhat unpleasant…and you know that.
tudorhistory.org/primary/papalbull.html

Both Catholics and Protestants committed atrocities. The pope was justified in condemning the reigning monarch for her role in the persecution of all those who opposed her. Her father had made himself head of the Church in England simply because the pope refused to let him divorce his wife! Henry VIII subsequently had two of his wives beheaded and saints like Thomas More were executed simply because they refused to renounce their faith. Elizabeth followed in his footsteps and many Catholics were tortured, hung, drawn and quartered during her long reign.

 

[PRmerger]

I, in no way am contemptuous. Pope Paul is the second Pope I remember. He was a gentle and caring Shepard of his flock. However, what he wrote does not fit with reality. If it did, there would be no such term as heresy.

Again, you are treading in dangerous waters. Saying that Pope Paul could have written heresy is toeing the line quite perilously.

 

[oldcelt]

Again, you are treading in dangerous waters. Saying that Pope Paul could have written heresy is toeing the line quite perilously.

You know perfectly well I was not referring to Paul VI., rather the consistent teaching of religious freedom issue. Read it again.

 

[PRmerger]

You know perfectly well I was not referring to Paul VI., rather the consistent teaching of religious freedom issue. Read it again.

Then there was no need to bring in the word heresy here.

You are associating his writings with the word delusion and the word heresy.

Be very careful.

 

[oldcelt]

Then there was no need to bring in the word heresy here.

You are associating his writings with the word delusion and the word heresy.

Be very careful.

Heresy was used, with a link to a 1570 Papal Bull as an example. Because if religious freedom had been a consistent teaching then there can be/have been no heretics. I see no need for caution when one is examining anything honestly.

 

[oldcelt]

Both Catholics and Protestants committed atrocities. The pope was justified in condemning the reigning monarch for her role in the persecution of all those who opposed her. Her father had made himself head of the Church in England simply because the pope refused to let him divorce his wife! Henry VIII subsequently had two of his wives beheaded and saints like Thomas More were executed simply because they refused to renounce their faith. Elizabeth followed in his footsteps and many Catholics were tortured, hung, drawn and quartered during her long reign.

Elizabeth was a rare user of the death penalty when compared to her father and half-sister. She did pursue it more vigorously after the Papal Bull and numerous attempts on her life… A much deeper look at who was in who’s pocket is beyond what I can possible write on any forum.
However, it is fascinating and horrifying at the same time.

 

[PRmerger]

Heresy was used, with a link to a 1570 Papal Bull as an example. Because if religious freedom had been a consistent teaching then there can be/have been no heretics.

Well, that’s a bit like saying there is forced belief in mathematics because there are wrong answers in math.

You cannot be a geometry teacher and profess, “This is a square!”

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Any geometry teacher who professes such a thing would be a mathematical heretic.

But that’s not to say there is coercion in the mathematical world. There is only truth. And those who espouse truth vs those who reject truth.

I see no need for caution when one is examining anything honestly.

Indeed.