If Hell exists, Having Children Is Evil

[PumpkinCookie]

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.

If no child is an acceptable loss, then why are some lost? If it isn’t acceptable, why does God accept it?

This passage illustrates that God is made happier by repentance than righteous behavior, not that 100% of sheep will be saved.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

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

Yes, excellent observation. If God is “good all the time” then the torments of hell should be a matter for rejoicing.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

If no child is an acceptable loss, then why are some lost? If it isn’t acceptable, why does God accept it?

This passage illustrates that God is made happier by repentance than righteous behavior, not that 100% of sheep will be saved.

God gave us free will. We are free to choose. As someone above mentioned, children do not go to Hell. People who know right from wrong, and willfully choose evil are the ones who go to Hell.

Even so there is ample time for redemption. A person can ask for forgiveness on his deathbed, even after a lifetime of evil, and God will forgive.

It’s people who do not believe in God who go to Hell. Hell is the absence of God.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

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.

Your rationality for using chance doesn’t make it any more appropriate. There is no chance involved in it, at all. If we raise our children well and they still chose against God then that is their choice and does not reflect on us nor make our decision to have children faulty. All it means is that they’ve rejected the gifts given to them of their own free will.

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.

Following this logic, God is evil because he created us knowing that we may chose against him.

I truly hope you see the absurdity in this.

Furthermore, you are only looking at one side of it. Yes, there is a ‘chance’ they may lose all and go to Hell. There is also the ‘chance’ they will gain all and go to Heaven. Why does the potential for a negative outcome out weight the potential for a positive outcome; especially when God has given us the tools and knowledge we need to achieve that positive outcome, and it’s only by ignoring all of the freely given gifts that we wind up with a bad end.

The potential for absolute gain is at least equal to, if not far surpassing of, the chance of absolute loss.

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).

This… isn’t even a real analogy, you’re missing the comparison aspect that makes an analogy and analogy.

There is nothing positive about cocaine; even the supposed highs are horrifically damaging, so it cannot compare to something which has both positive and negative potential. I’m sorry, but there’s really no way for me to address this paragraph.

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.

Of course something is not justified simply because it is chosen, that has nothing to do with what I wrote. The existence of the choice is the good, not the choice itself. The choice can be good if you chose well, but it can also be bad if you chose poorly. God wills for each person to chose him. That is his active will, it is the purpose behind our existence. By refusing to have children we are refusing to allows God’s active will to flourish in the way he intended. We are preventing someone from taking part in that choice through our own choices. When we cooperate with God’s call to go forth and multiply, we are bringing new life, created in his image and intended to spend eternity in Heaven with him, into existence with God so that they may take their own role in God’s active will.

What you are saying is that choosing to cooperate with God’s will is evil, which is a logically untenable position to hold for any Christian.

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

It’s not a matter of not liking it; the problem is that you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of salvation which lead you to think that was an appropriate analogy. I hope you believe me when I say that this is not meant as a personal attack, but I feel that such an egregious misunderstanding needs to be corrected for the benefit of all involved.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Let’s work backwards from the good of choice:

1. God wills that all people engage their will to chose him.
   1-a: Engaging your will towards God is positive and results in eternal salvation.
   1-b: Engaging your will against God is negative and results in eternal damnation.
   1-c: The existence of two opposed outcomes has no affect on whether or not the ability to chose is positive or negative.
   1-d: Since we believe that God is all good, and since God wills us to chose him, the existence of that choice is good.
2. In order to engage your will, it is necessary that you exist.
3. In common human terms (excluding spontaneous creation by God), in order to exist is it necessary that your parents conceive and bear you.
4. My parents are not responsible for my choices.
   4-a: My parent’s parents are not responsible for my parent’s choices.
   4-b: Continue this cycle up the line to our first parents, Adam and Eve.
5. Flowing from the position that God is wholly good, it was Good for God to create Adam and Eve, even knowing they may chose against Him.
6. Flowing from the position that God cannot do evil (supported by the position that God is wholly good), God’s decision to create Adam and Eve cannot be evil.
7. Flowing from the position that God is coherent, and what would be wrong for him would be equally wrong for us; and flowing from premises 5 and 6, if it is not evil for God to create life knowing they would chose against him, it is not evil for us to join in creating life with the potential to chose against him. this is further supported by premise 4, because the parent is not responsible for the choices of the child, futher removing any potential for it to be evil.
   7-1: This is supported by the premise that knowing a negative outcome and choosing to do it anyways would be significant worse than having the potential for a negative outcome and choosing to do it.

The only way your premise is true is if God committed an evil act by creating Adam and Eve. I hope you can see how this is completely contrary to everything we know about God; and how completely incompatible that viewpoint is with Christian faith.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Yes, excellent observation. If God is “good all the time” then the torments of hell should be a matter for rejoicing.

The torments themselves are not a matter for rejoicing; however, God’s absolute justice is. if a person is in Hell they are there because by their own choice they wanted to be separated from God for eternity. We rejoice in the fact that God does not force himself on us and instead acknowledges and respects our will, no matter how much it may hurt him. We do not rejoice because the damned are in Hell, we rejoice because God loved them enough to even allow him to reject him. (After all, isn’t there a common saying that if you love something you should let it go. The significance of this is that it does not matter how much it hurts you personally, you cannot force someone to love you.)

There’s a train of thought which posits that to a damned soul the pains of Hell are nothing compared to the pain they feel being in the presence of God. They throw themselves into Hell because it is easier and less painful than submitting and conforming themselves to Him. I don’t know how much support this train of thought has in the Church, but it’s something I find interesting to contemplate.

This’ll probably be my last post in this thread for the day. I hope you take something from my post. God Bless!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

That is the Albigensian heresy that was disposed of by the Dominicans in the 13th century.

 

[GEddie]

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

I never said I believed that everybody goes to Heaven, only that Hell is not the near-universal outcome that some sin buffs seem to think it to be.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Ignatius]

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

Have you reread the Catechism?

 

[Bradski]

On the assumption that you think that hell is eternal torment, then let’s face it, if you positively knew that your child was going to go to hell, then you wouldn’t have her. No parent would.

So we have children believing either that hell is not eternal torment or there is zero chance that they will end up there.

 

[oldcelt]

That is the Albigensian heresy that was disposed of by the Dominicans in the 13th century.

Apparently not disposed of…there are at least three of us here who agree with that premise.

John

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

You think like a protestant and need to learn to think like a Catholic.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Apparently not disposed of…there are at least three of us here who agree with that premise.

John

I’ll ask three Dominicans to pray for all three of you.

 

[oldcelt]

You think like a protestant and need to learn to think like a Catholic.

If you were referring to me, I no longer think much like either.

 

[Ignatius]

On the assumption that you think that hell is eternal torment, then let’s face it, if you positively knew that your child was going to go to hell, then you wouldn’t have her. No parent would.

So we have children believing either that hell is not eternal torment or there is zero chance that they will end up there.

Your premise is faulty. Children are not culpable and, therefore, don’t go to hell. (see The Catechism)

 

[CHRISTINE77]

On the assumption that you think that hell is eternal torment, then let’s face it, if you positively knew that your child was going to go to hell, then you wouldn’t have her. No parent would.

So we have children believing either that hell is not eternal torment or there is zero chance that they will end up there.

People aren’t thinking about whether their child will go to Hell when they have a child. How goofy.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Let me try to be more clear. I am not advocating the Albigensian heresy.

I am trying to highlight one of the logical and ethical consequences of belief in an everlasting hell.

If one believes that there is such a thing as everlasting hell, then it is immoral to have children. The reason this is so, is because there is a chance that one’s children will end up in hell.

If I knew for certain that my potential children would certainly go to hell, then it would be absolutely wrong to have them, since their existence in eternal torment outweighs any potential good, in my opinion.

I don’t know for certain if my potential children would go to hell, but there would be some amount of risk that they would go to hell and be tormented forever. This risk is enough to justify not having them in my opinion. I think it would be better not to expose them to the potentiality of eternal torment. No amount of good could possibly outweigh that risk.

Yes, I accept that this means that it was wrong for God to create us (given eternal hell).

I embrace this logical consequence because it shows that eternal hell makes life seem evil and God seem cruel. I think life is good, and that God is by no means cruel, and therefore cannot believe in eternal hell.

The whole point of this thread is to expose a serious problem for those who hold a belief in eternal hell. Some of you do not believe this is a serious problem, but I don’t understand why not?

If someone can prove to me that it isn’t wrong to expose a person to potential eternal damnation, I will change my mind.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Let me try to be more clear. I am not advocating the Albigensian heresy.

I am trying to highlight one of the logical and ethical consequences of belief in an everlasting hell.

If one believes that there is such a thing as everlasting hell, then it is immoral to have children. The reason this is so, is because there is a chance that one’s children will end up in hell.

If I knew for certain that my potential children would certainly go to hell, then it would be absolutely wrong to have them, since their existence in eternal torment outweighs any potential good, in my opinion.

I don’t know for certain if my potential children would go to hell, but there would be some amount of risk that they would go to hell and be tormented forever. This risk is enough to justify not having them in my opinion. I think it would be better not to expose them to the potentiality of eternal torment. No amount of good could possibly outweigh that risk.

Yes, I accept that this means that it was wrong for God to create us (given eternal hell).

I embrace this logical consequence because it shows that eternal hell makes life seem evil and God seem cruel. I think life is good, and that God is by no means cruel, and therefore cannot believe in eternal hell.

The whole point of this thread is to expose a serious problem for those who hold a belief in eternal hell. Some of you do not believe this is a serious problem, but I don’t understand why not?

If someone can prove to me that it isn’t wrong to expose a person to potential eternal damnation, I will change my mind.

You’re free to believe in whatever you want, but I think we have already made enough arguments against your beliefs.

 

[Memaw]

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?

If anyone is in Hell it is because of their own choice, NOT God’s. We are created with a free will. We have to leave the judging up to God. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Zachary]

If someone can prove to me that it isn’t wrong to expose a person to potential eternal damnation, I will change my mind.

You ignore the other side of the coin. Your own argument should convince you to change your mind. You claim to be appealing to logic to make your case but you aren’t extending your logic to its logical conclusion.

If, as you’ve stated, it is evil to expose another human being to the possibility of eternal (perfect) damnation (by having children and “chance”) then it must follow that it is good to expose another person to the possibility to eternal (perfect) heaven (by having children and “chance.”) Therefore, having children is both perfectly evil and good. And your argument collapses.

I can’t tell if you’re trying to convince yourself to not have children or if you are honestly trying to present a dilemma (which, for all intents and purposes, is incompatible with God as revealed to the Church) in the hopes of steering Christians from God. I hope it’s neither.

Now, if you were arguing that having children AND directly teaching them to reject God I would agree that such action would be evil. But merely having a baby, which is a natural, healthy and “good” act is not the same thing.