If Hell exists, Having Children Is Evil

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I would say that raising children can be hell.

but

Becoming a grandparent makes it worth while.

 

[pianistclare]

Life is not a lottery.

 

[GEddie]

The existence of eternal Hell no more makes human life undesirable than the existence of Hell, Michigan.

One is not required to go to either one.

My personal belief is that earning eternal Hell is a more involved and determined process than most of us flimsy human beings will ever incur.

ICXC NIKA

 

[black_sphere]

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.

Should we use words like “unfortunately” or “sadly” when talking about God’s plan? Does God’s plan entail tragedy for some?

 

[Memaw]

The existence of eternal Hell no more makes human life undesirable than the existence of Hell, Michigan.

One is not required to go to either one.

My personal belief is that earning eternal Hell is a more involved and determined process than most of us flimsy human beings will ever incur.

ICXC NIKA

Don’t count on it, we like to think that everyone is going to Heaven but that is not what Jesus taught. or what the Catholic Church teaches. Our personal beliefs are not always in line with the Magisterium teaches. God Bless, Memaw

 

[PumpkinCookie]

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

I will grant that “hell is a choice” some people make for the purposes of this discussion. I will grant this only by way of saying that people freely choose sin, and hell is the result of sin.

However, there is always a chance that each of us will make that choice. We do not know the future, and cannot know if our children will choose hell. That is why I say there is a non-zero chance. If anyone at all has ever or will ever “choose hell” then there is a non-zero chance your children will be among those who “choose hell.”

 

[phil19034]

I will grant that “hell is a choice” some people make for the purposes of this discussion. I will grant this only by way of saying that people freely choose sin, and hell is the result of sin.

However, there is always a chance that each of us will make that choice. We do not know the future, and cannot know if our children will choose hell. That is why I say there is a non-zero chance. If anyone at all has ever or will ever “choose hell” then there is a non-zero chance your children will be among those who “choose hell.”

Well… that’s like saying “I better not have kids because I don’t know if they will turn out to be criminals, even though I will do my best to make sure they don’t”

or

“I better not drive a car because I don’t know if I might get in an accident”

 

[PumpkinCookie]

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.

I do not believe that religious education is “brainwashing” and do not see the relation to the problem here.

I think it is OK to take the risk of driving because being maimed for life, while terrible, is an acceptable outcome. The chances of being maimed for life or killed while driving are somewhat improbable, but possible.

However, being in hell for eternity is infinitely worse than being maimed for life or killed in a car wreck. If there is even the smallest chance of going to hell, I would say the risk is not worth the reward.

We do not choose to get in to a car wreck, but neither do we choose whether our children will choose to go to hell.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I will grant that “hell is a choice” some people make for the purposes of this discussion. I will grant this only by way of saying that people freely choose sin, and hell is the result of sin.

However, there is always a chance that each of us will make that choice. We do not know the future, and cannot know if our children will choose hell. That is why I say there is a non-zero chance. If anyone at all has ever or will ever “choose hell” then there is a non-zero chance your children will be among those who “choose hell.”

But how do you conclude that having children is evil by this argument? For if even one child does good and all the others do evil, it is still good to have children. The chance that some children may be evil and some will be good shows that your argument does not hold water.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

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

Yes, I am willing to grant that sin is a choice that leads to hell sometimes. However, we do not choose whether or not our children will choose hell. That is why I use “chance” to describe the situation. We do not know, and it is entirely possible: therefore chance is the most appropriate way to describe our children’s situation from our point of view.

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.

I do not think you have shown this to be false. I agree that we are not “wholly culpable” if our children go to hell. However, we do know that there is a chance our children will choose hell. Hell is so evil and so horrific, that to knowingly expose someone to the risk of hell is certainly evil.

Imagine if I were to give you some crack cocaine. I don’t know if you will become addicted or not, although I’ve heard that many people do become addicted. Would it not be evil for me to give you the crack cocaine? This isn’t a perfect analogy, because you could refuse the crack and have some knowledge about the risks of crack. None of us had the freedom to refuse life, and we were born without any disclosures about the risk (eternal hell).

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.

Is a thing justified simply because it is a free choice? Gay marriage is a free choice and yet you might say it is unjust. Abortion is a free choice and yet you might say it is unjust. Clearly, a thing is not just simply because it is chosen.

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.

That’s OK you don’t like my comparison. We don’t have to use it.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

But how do you conclude that having children is evil by this argument? For if even one child does good and all the others do evil, it is still good to have children. The chance that some children may be evil and some will be good shows that your argument does not hold water.

This isn’t about what the children do but about the final outcome of their lives.

How many children in heaven outweighs a child in hell? One to one? What if every single child ends up in hell? Was it worth it to have them? How many children in hell are acceptable losses?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

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.

1. How do you know this? Which lottery? I am happy to drop the lottery illustration because it fails. Let’s just discuss the actual situation.
2. Yes. But, we don’t know if our own children will choose it, that is why I describe it as “chance” or “risk.”
3. Sure. This doesn’t affect our knowledge of whether or not our children will go to hell.
4. OK clearly we’ve shown that my illustration fails. I hereby abandon it.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

'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

Yes, the writer of Ecclesiasticus is exactly correct. If a child ends up going to hell, it would have been better if that child had never been born. Even though the concept of hell would have been foreign to the writer, this opinion seems warranted.

 

[Ignatius]

1. I am happy to drop the lottery illustration because it fails. Let’s just discuss the actual situation.

What you are not taking into account, i.e." the actual situation", is that God will give each and every person the Grace necessary to achieve eternal joy with Him forever. It is a matter of choice, He didn’t create us to be robots. If we could not choose the contrary, there wouldn’t really be any real choice.

This is pretty basic, might want to reread The Catechism. I’m still finding something new I didn’t know every time I reread it myself.

I hope this helps clear up your misunderstanding.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

This isn’t about what the children do but about the final outcome of their lives.

How many children in heaven outweighs a child in hell? One to one? What if every single child ends up in hell? Was it worth it to have them? How many children in hell are acceptable losses?

No child is an acceptable loss. Jesus clearly wants all of his children to come home.

3 Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

Salvation is available for everyone.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

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.)

I take it as granted that non-existence is better than eternal hell. You would not be responsible for the outcome of the mining incident because it was already a bad situation and you were trying to help.

By having a child, you are opening a human being to the risk of eternal hell, which is unimaginably worse that any mining accident or any human catastrophe in history. You know this before you choose to have a child, and therefore bear some responsibility for the outcome. You weren’t trying to help or fix a bad situation, you created the situation in the first place.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

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

This idea is by no means new. In fact, I would submit that this idea lies dormant and latent at the heart of Christian belief. You can see it in Augustine most clearly, in my opinion. This idea flows naturally from the RCC’s teachings about original sin, hell, predestination, and grace.

 

[Ignatius]

By having a child, you are opening to the risk of eternal hell,

Children don’t go to hell. Again, What you are not taking into account, i.e." the actual situation", is that God will give each and every person the Grace necessary to achieve eternal joy with Him forever so no child is going to go to hell. It is a matter of choice, He didn’t create us to be robots. If we could not choose the contrary, there wouldn’t really be any real choice.

This is pretty basic, might want to reread The Catechism. I’m still finding something new I didn’t know every time I reread it myself.

I hope this helps clear up your misunderstanding.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

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.

It doesn’t make sense to blame one’s parents for one’s choices. It is entirely justifiable to blame one’s parents for one’s existence however right?

Life is not evil per se, but to create new life knowing that there would be a chance that life would end up tormented forever and ever is wrong, in my opinion.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Children don’t go to hell. Again, What you are not taking into account, i.e." the actual situation", is that God will give each and every person the Grace necessary to achieve eternal joy with Him forever so no child is going to go to hell. It is a matter of choice, He didn’t create us to be robots. If we could not choose the contrary, there wouldn’t really be any real choice.

This is pretty basic, might want to reread The Catechism. I’m still finding something new I didn’t know every time I reread it myself.

I hope this helps clear up your misunderstanding.

If God gives everyone the grace to go to heaven…then why aren’t they there?

If all children are going to heaven, are they robots?