If Hell exists, Having Children Is Evil

[ProdglArchitect]

Does something being freely chosen make it right?

This is a bad way of wording the question because you have to distinguish between the choice and the results of the choice.

A choice can be wrong, and choosing Hell is certainly the wrong choice. That does not, however, mean that acknowledging and adhering to that choice is wrong. You are conflating the choice with the repercussions of that choice. If I chose to rob a bank, that is a bad choice, but in making it I acknowledge the fact that I may go to jail. The choice to rob the bank was not right, but the results of that choice are both right and just. Similarly, if a person chooses against God, it is right and just for God to allow the results of that choice, which is eternal separation from Him.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

There is also the chance that they will end up in everlasting heaven.

Would you deny your possible children that chance as well?

No one is destined for hell because he is your child.

That is the child’s choice as an adult to make.

Anyone in hell is there because of divine justice.

Justice cannot and should not be thwarted by fear of hell.

The mercy of heaven cannot and should not be thwarted by fear of hell.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

it is morally right because God commands it of us, and God would not command us to engage in a moral evil. God is rational and consistent, and therefore cannot act against his own nature. Since his nature is good, he cannot command us to do anything that is not good.

OK so a thing is good because God commands it. This is the divine command theory of ethics correct? I am potentially ready to accept that this is the truth about morality. However, would you also agree that if it seemed like God were commanding us to do something evil, then we should conclude that we’re not hearing from God?

If so, I think the command to have children while knowing that they may freely choose to be tortured endlessly in hell, is an evil command. Because of this, I do not think God said it. Don’t get me wrong, I do think God commanded us to have children, but I do not think he suggested an eternal hell.

Your demonstration has to be reasonable though, which it is not. It’s conclusion relies on something which is impossible to arrive at a conclusion, so a rational conclusion cannot be arrived at.

Why is it not reasonable? We can imagine a being with perfect knowledge including the future right? (God.) So, it would seem that my illustration would help us understand how knowledge and guilt are related. If I had no knowledge of an eternal hell at all, then I would be totally blameless for having children since I didn’t know their potential terrible fate. However, if I claim to have some knowledge, then I incur some guilt (or praise I suppose).

I am not upset because of your argument, I am upset because calling God’s act of creation evil is contrary to every fiber of my being and belief, and I cannot understand how you, who profess to believe that God is good, can state something like that.

I don’t believe creation is evil. I would only believe that if eternal hell is part of creation.

Even if you do not accept the reality of Christ’s divnity and sonship, the OT has plenty of evidence wich points to the existence of an eternal separation from God. This article goes into a couple of the more direct proofs.

If this were so convincing, then why have Jews never affirmed belief in an eternal hell? If God’s chosen people can’t get it right after 5,000 years, what hope have we? Why wouldn’t God choose to reveal something so serious and fundamental?

It is not immoral because you do not will them to go to Hell. In order for an act to be sinful, the will must be involved. If I had a child with the explicit intention of directing them towards Hell, then it would be immoral to have them. If, on the other hand, my intention is to direct them towards God, then it is absolutely moral of me to have children (with my wife, of course)

It is not a problem because it is ultimately their choice. It is not forced on them, it is not determined arbitrarily, it is the sum result of every choice they make in their lives.

Yes, you do not will for them to go to hell. But, you arbitrarily and forcibly choose for them to exist in the first place, knowing that they are at risk of choosing eternal hell.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

A question to you. How is it moral for God to override our free will to suit his own? If a person does not want to be with God, how could it be considered moral to force them to be? We describe Hell as torture and suffering, but in reality the chief pain of Hell is the complete absence of God. That absence is one which a person chooses.

I agree that morality doesn’t make sense if we do not have free will. God doesn’t have to force us to be with him. If we choose to be away from God, then he can annihilate us.

You cannot believe in a God that gives us free will to chose for or against him in life, while simultaneously believing that God will not respect our free will and allow us to chose to be with him or separated from him. It would be logically inconsistent to give us free will while simultaneously rendering that free will meaningless. since we believe that God is logically consistent, this is an impossible position to hold.

Yes I agree, good thing I don’t hold that position.

If a person spends their life choosing to separate themselves from God, then God will accept that choice. The possibility of that end result has no affect on whether or not the creation of new life is moral or immoral. I really don’t think I can’t state it any plainer. God said that creating new life is good, so claiming that the potential for a negative outcome to that life overrides God’s direct command is contrary to both the New and Old Testaments.

Oh but it does have bearing on whether the choice to create or conceive a child is moral. Imagine if every single person who has ever lived ended up in hell. All of us. Every last one. Would you still affirm that creation is “good?” If you suspected that the world is in fact this way, would it not be immoral to bring yet another person in to eternal suffering? If you say this world would still be “good” then we’re done here. The meaning of the word “good” will have been obliterated. If you say that this world would be “evil,” then please tell me how many fewer people in hell it would take for the world to be “good.”

I’ve already addressed this. Hell is an absolute reality, the direct result of free will. It would be logically inconsistent to give us free will while simultaneously rendering that free will meaningless. Therefore, it is necessary to conclude that God has provisions for both a will directed towards him, and a will directed away from him. If there is only the option to be directed towards him, then there is no free will. Incidentally, the notion of the destruction of souls is also logically inconsistent because it violates the eternal nature of the souls which God creates.

Tell of the eternal nature of souls. Why can’t they be destroyed? Is God not able? Why not? Can’t he do anything? Aren’t they made out of nothing in the first place?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

It does. The existence of Hell is a positive thing, because it shows us that God loves us enough to respect our decisions in regards to Him. You cannot force someone to love you, and since Heaven is becoming part of the limitless and eternal love of God, you cannot force someone to be in Heaven.

Oh wow, I can’t believe you believe this! If my own family ended up in hell I would be devastated. In no way could I see that as a positive thing. Surely you don’t mean that?

It sucks and I pity them because there is something so much better for them, if only they had been willing to accept it. The fact that we want to be with God, and therefore pity people who don’t, doesn’t change the fact that those people don’t want to be with God.

Why pity those who get what they want? If only we could all be so lucky. But…maybe “what we want” isn’t always the same as “what’s best for us.” Are you saying you pity them because they don’t get “what’s best for them?” Isn’t love wanting what’s best for the other? So, if some children never get “what’s best for them”…then how can we say that God loves them?

The final answer that I can give to your question is this:

God is a logical, rational being who gave us free will.
This free will can be directed towards or against God.
Since God is logically rational, he would not give us something that would ultimately be meaningless.
Since free will cannot be meaningless, it is necessary that both potentials be accounted for. (These potentials being "I choose for God’ or “I choose against God.”)
Since a person can chose to be apart from God, it is necessary that there is some form of existence which is apart from God; otherwise God would violate his own rationality by violating our free wills.

I literally cannot state it any more straight forward than that.

Principal: I’m a good guy, I always do the right thing, and I want all my students to make their own choices.

You: OK…

Principal: So, the students can choose whether or not to follow the rules and get good grades.

You: Right that seems obvious…

Principal: Yeah because I don’t want to run a meaningless school. School wouldn’t be school if the students just always did whatever I wanted them to do. Besides that, the students would be little robots instead of human beings. How meaningless!

You: OK right sounds alright.

Principal: Right, so if the students choose not to get good grades and follow the rules, then they need to spend the rest of their lives torturing each other in the basement.

You: What? Why? Isn’t that horrific overkill? That’s sick, and evil!

Principal: No, no, it is totally OK because the students want to be there. They just hate me so much and don’t want to be around me ever again so they voluntarily hide themselves in the basement and torture each other.

You: Just what kind of school are you running? What could make them all hate you so much? Why not just kick them out? Why do you have to keep them in the basement? If they really don’t want to be around you and hate school, just send them home.

Principal: …[need an answer here]…

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The problem with this analogy (or, another problem with this analogy) is that it ignores the will of the children. In your analogy the children are “put in the basement” by an external force. This does not properly reflect the reality of Hell. When a person goes to Hell, they send themselves there, they are there of their own free will.

I thought the principal said the students choose to go to the basement. Post #65. The principal believes the basement is justified because the students choose to go there.

Even if the metaphorical gates of Hell were wide open (which some theologians believe they are), no one would leave because they’ve all chosen to be there. For the ones who outright reject God, they are there because they’d rather suffer the pains of Hell than subject themselves to God’s authority. For those who are in Hell because they are great sinners, it is less painful to be in Hell than to be in the direct presence of God, constantly being convicted (which means made aware of) the full extent of the pain their sins inflicted on our Lord and Creator. Everyone in Hell falls into one of these two categories, which means that everyone who is in Hell is there because they’d rather be there than in the Lord’s presence.

Principal: Oh come on…there aren’t that many students in the basement. The founder was just exaggerating. And, the many hundreds of successful graduates are just trying to scare the current students into getting good grades and following the rules. All of the students in the basement just really want to be there and freely choose to go there. They hate me so much, they’d rather torture themselves for the rest of their lives than do their homework or follow the rules.

You: Wow, those are some messed up kids! Why would any rational person think following the rules and getting good grades is so awful? They must be nuts. They need help, not punishment! It isn’t right to let children harm each other like that! At least send them home or something. Why prolong their agony?

To frame it in your analogy, it would be something like: The children, realizing that they’d refused the help so freely given to them, ran to the basement to hide from the teacher, lest the remember what they rejected every time they see her. They will never come up for fear of seeing that teacher again, or for fear of having to acknowledge that the teacher knew better than them when she tried to help them. (It’s hard to frame it in your analogy, but I tried.)

Wow, so the people in hell have a supernatural, infinite stubbornness? From where do they get it? Are people really that irrational? And, if they’re that irrational, is it right to allow them to punish themselves indefinitely? I can see how you might say it would be right for God to keep them in existence indefinitely to give them a chance to repent. But, if God knows they aren’t going to repent, why keep them alive? Further, why make them in the first place?

And, if there is a risk that our own children will choose to be irrationally stubborn and doomed to eternal torment, is it right to create them?

This is a bad way of wording the question because you have to distinguish between the choice and the results of the choice.

A choice can be wrong, and choosing Hell is certainly the wrong choice. That does not, however, mean that acknowledging and adhering to that choice is wrong. You are conflating the choice with the repercussions of that choice. If I chose to rob a bank, that is a bad choice, but in making it I acknowledge the fact that I may go to jail. The choice to rob the bank was not right, but the results of that choice are both right and just. Similarly, if a person chooses against God, it is right and just for God to allow the results of that choice, which is eternal separation from Him.

Yes, excellent, I agree with you. Right, so the “choice” is whether to sin or not correct? Hell just happens to be the “repercussion” of the choice to sin without repentance right?

So, it doesn’t truly make sense to say anyone “chooses” hell on this understanding, correct? We would be conflating the choice (sin) with the repercussion of that choice (hell).

Now you seem to be arguing that hell is good not because it is freely chosen, but rather because it is a fitting punishment or “repercussion” of a legitimate choice.

Principal: The students deserve to be in the basement torturing each other for the rest of their lives because they freely chose to get bad grades and break the rules.

You: But, doesn’t the punishment seem kind of harsh for the offenses?

Principal: No, because I am so awesome and powerful, that even getting a B on a test is enough for me to have created a torture chamber basement where students hurt each other for the rest of their lives. If they choose not to get As, then they definitely deserve a life of nothing but continuous torment.

You: Sounds quite sadistic actually. If you are really so powerful and awesome, why must you spill out such wrath upon children? How have they harmed you? It would seem that the more awesome and powerful you are, the less their bad grades and rule breaking would harm you. If the degree of the punishment proceeds not from the gravity of the act, but from the vulnerability of the offended, then shouldn’t you just send them home?

Principal: …[answer here]…

 

[PumpkinCookie]

What exactly do you mean by these highlighted statements?

Hell is the eternal separation from God, freely chosen, freely given. This has been pointed out to you numerous times.

This may be why people react to you the way that they do. You may ask the questions that you want answered but you do not listen to the answers.

I mean that going to hell is the worst imaginable outcome of a human life. It is so horrific, that it blots out anything good or valuable. Consider how long eternity truly is. To experience nothing but unrelenting torment for all of eternity makes life a nightmare and a sadistic joke. To think that anyone would expose their own children to even the slightest chance that they would endure this, forever, is unconscionable, in my opinion.

I am happy to listen to your answers. I feel that I have responded to the idea that hell is a free choice by saying that either hell is not the choice (sin is the choice) or that if hell is the choice, that doesn’t make it right or good. Even if sin is the choice, one must prove that hell is a proportional or just punishment. I have not seen a convincing argument for this yet. I will read and re-read this thread carefully in an attempt to find answers. Thanks for your help!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

There is also the chance that they will end up in everlasting heaven.

Would you deny your possible children that chance as well?

No one is destined for hell because he is your child.

That is the child’s choice as an adult to make.

Anyone in hell is there because of divine justice.

Justice cannot and should not be thwarted by fear of hell.

The mercy of heaven cannot and should not be thwarted by fear of hell.

Yes I would deny them the chance, because the consequences of failing to make it are too horrific to consider. It is certainly a very empty way to look at life, but seems required by the belief in eternal hell.

You: I don’t think I want my kids to enroll at this school.

Principal: But why not? Afterall, they might be one of our esteemed graduates!

You: I guess, but the founder and many alums have told me that most of the students don’t make it and are trapped in your torture chamber basement for the rest of their lives! I don’t want to risk it, I think I’ll home-school them.

Principal: But those bad students got what was coming to them! They chose it! Don’t you want your kids to get what’s coming to them too?? Don’t you want them to have what they want?

You: No way! I love my children and want what’s best for them, not necessarily what they want. Any parent or teacher who just lets children have what they want based upon the judgement of the child is unfit!

 

[Memaw]

And why not? Could you live with yourself if your children ended up in hell? Wouldn’t that be the worst thing imaginable?

Don’t you want the best for your children? Don’t you want them to be happy and have a good life? But, by having them, you are opening up the possibility that they will be tortured forever. Isn’t that too much of a risk to take?

Did you ever wonder why your here and where you will spend Eternity?? If I were you I would be spending a lot of time learning about how Our Lord made it possible for none of us to end up there. If only we “Listen to Him”. Your parents gave you birth now it’s up to you to meet Our Lord JOYFULLY some day. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Lou2U]

Yes, you do not will for them to go to hell. But, you arbitrarily and forcibly choose for them to exist in the first place, knowing that they are at risk of choosing eternal hell.

Yes, children do not get a choice that they are born, but they do get a choice of what they do with their life.

The Catholic Church has never taught that parents are culpable if their children commit acts which causes them to go to hell.

I feel that I have responded to the idea that hell is a free choice by saying that either hell is not the choice (sin is the choice) or that if hell is the choice, that doesn’t make it right or good. Even if sin is the choice, one must prove that hell is a proportional or just punishment. I have not seen a convincing argument for this yet. I will read and re-read this thread carefully in an attempt to find answers. Thanks for your help!

If your sin causes you to go to hell, then you must have committed a sin worthy of eternal punishment. If hell was not a proportional or just punishment, then why would the CC teach it to be so? If hell is not a just punishment, then why does Confession exist for Catholics to be absolved of their sins?

Lou

 

[ProdglArchitect]

OK so a thing is good because God commands it. This is the divine command theory of ethics correct? I am potentially ready to accept that this is the truth about morality. However, would you also agree that if it seemed like God were commanding us to do something evil, then we should conclude that we’re not hearing from God?

I never said it is good because God commands it, you are misinterpreting me. God IS good, God IS love, he is the pure embodiment of good, and it is from Him that our concept of good is derived. It is not good because God commands it, but rather God commands it because it is good. God cannot command us to do something evil because that would be contrary to his nature.

If so, I think the command to have children while knowing that they may freely choose to be tortured endlessly in hell, is an evil command. Because of this, I do not think God said it. Don’t get me wrong, I do think God commanded us to have children, but I do not think he suggested an eternal hell.

I’ve addressed this so many times already, I’m not going to repeat myself again.

Why is it not reasonable? We can imagine a being with perfect knowledge including the future right? (God.) So, it would seem that my illustration would help us understand how knowledge and guilt are related. If I had no knowledge of an eternal hell at all, then I would be totally blameless for having children since I didn’t know their potential terrible fate. However, if I claim to have some knowledge, then I incur some guilt (or praise I suppose).

You have no guilt for the choices of your children. Again, I’ve said this more times than I can count, and you have yet to refute that point. If you can illustrate that I am responsible for my child’s choices then you may have a point. And please, please don’t say we’re responsible because we chose to have them. That stances has also been refuted several times in this topic and despite your efforts you have not circumvented or refuted our rebuttals.

I don’t believe creation is evil. I would only believe that if eternal hell is part of creation.

Then you believe that creation is evil, because there is a Hell. I have already presented evidence to this affect that does not rely on Christ or the New Testament.

If this were so convincing, then why have Jews never affirmed belief in an eternal hell? If God’s chosen people can’t get it right after 5,000 years, what hope have we? Why wouldn’t God choose to reveal something so serious and fundamental?

Jews are not a single massive whole like Catholicism. There are plenty of sects that believe in an eternal Hell and plenty that don’t. Like Protestantism, they lack a central authority from which to derive definitive interpretations about scripture. That is part of why theirs was a temporary covenant.

On a more individualistic level, people who don’t want to believe something won’t. It doesn’t matter how solid your evidence for it is, it doesn’t matter how many arguments you make. It doesn’t matter if you literally take them to the thing they don’t believe, they’ll still refuse to believe. There are still people, educated people, who think the world is flat, or that the Earth is the center of the universe. Ignorance can be just as much a matter of choice as it can a matter of circumstance.

Yes, you do not will for them to go to hell. But, you arbitrarily and forcibly choose for them to exist in the first place, knowing that they are at risk of choosing eternal hell.

As I have said, ad nauseum, and now for the last time (well, for the last series), IT IS NOT IMMORAL FOR A PARENT TO BEAR CHILDREN, IT IS A DIRECT COMMAND FROM GOD, WHO IS ALL GOOD. IT IS HIS ACTIVE WILL THAT WE PARTICIPATE WITH HIM IN THE CREATION OF NEW SOULS, AND IT IS HIS ACTIVE WILL THAT ALL SOULS BE JOINED WITH HIM IN HEAVEN FOR ETERNITY. THAT SOME FAIL TO DO THIS HAS NO AFFECT ON THE MORALITY OF THE COMMAND.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I agree that morality doesn’t make sense if we do not have free will. God doesn’t have to force us to be with him. If we choose to be away from God, then he can annihilate us.

Annihilation would be contrary to the eternal nature of our souls, and a violation of God’s will in creating us. When he created us he actively willed that we would be eternal, so if he then chooses to annihilate us, he would be violating his will, which would make him irrational and contradictory.

Oh but it does have bearing on whether the choice to create or conceive a child is moral. Imagine if every single person who has ever lived ended up in hell. All of us. Every last one. Would you still affirm that creation is “good?” If you suspected that the world is in fact this way, would it not be immoral to bring yet another person in to eternal suffering? If you say this world would still be “good” then we’re done here. The meaning of the word “good” will have been obliterated. If you say that this world would be “evil,” then please tell me how many fewer people in hell it would take for the world to be “good.”

Yes, I would, because we all deserve it. We all sin against God repeatedly in our lives. The angles only got one chance, we have an unlimited number of chances up unto the point of our death. We all deserve Hell because we all reject God, it is only his mercy which spares us from that fate. Even if every last person who has ever existed was in Hell, that would not change the reality that we are there as a result of our own actions and choices, and that it is wholly and completely just and right of our Lord to give us what we so often ask, to not be with him. Hell is justice, Heaven is God’s mercy being poured out and every last person who is willing to accept it. No amount of people being in hell would make it unjust or make creation evil. God created us to be with him, that is now and forever will be, good. The number of people rejecting this purpose has no affect on the fact that it is good.

Tell of the eternal nature of souls. Why can’t they be destroyed? Is God not able? Why not? Can’t he do anything? Aren’t they made out of nothing in the first place?

As I’ve said, numerous times, God is rational. He cannot contradict himself. He created our souls to be eternal, to exist from the moment of our creation into eternity. If God were to annihilate a soul, that would be a contradiction to his decision to make us eternal, meaning that his is contradicting himself and is therefore not rational.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Oh wow, I can’t believe you believe this! If my own family ended up in hell I would be devastated. In no way could I see that as a positive thing. Surely you don’t mean that?

I mean every last character of it, wholly and completely. The reality of Hell is ugly. It is pain, suffering and emptiness. But it is also something which a person wills for them self. The reality of Hell is far more loving than the violation of free will required for everyone to be in Heaven, or the violation of the eternal nature of the soul required for annihilation. To the people in Hell, it is a refuge, it is freedom from God’s authority or God’s gaze. It is empty because it lacks the very purpose for which we were created; it is painful because it lacks any form of good whatsoever (since God IS good, and God is not in Hell, there can be no good in Hell); and it is eternal because at death our wills are set, at death we see God in his entirety, just as the angels saw him, and we make our choice, which is just as irrevocable as the angels’.

Why pity those who get what they want? If only we could all be so lucky. But…maybe “what we want” isn’t always the same as “what’s best for us.” Are you saying you pity them because they don’t get “what’s best for them?” Isn’t love wanting what’s best for the other? So, if some children never get “what’s best for them”…then how can we say that God loves them?

What we want isn’t what’s best for us, but God does not force us to do what’s best for us onto us. I can want the best for all people, but even if I give them explicit instructions on how to get it, not everyone will accept it. It is tragic, but that doesn’t make ME any less loving, nor does it reduce my desire for them to have what’s best. God loves them because they are his creation, he gives his love freely and boundlessly. If someone decides not to accept that love it is not God’s fault, or my fault, or their parent’s fault; it is their fault; and they will suffer the consequences of that decision.

Principal: I’m a good guy, I always do the right thing, and I want all my students to make their own choices.

You: OK…

Principal: So, the students can choose whether or not to follow the rules and get good grades.

You: Right that seems obvious…

Principal: Yeah because I don’t want to run a meaningless school. School wouldn’t be school if the students just always did whatever I wanted them to do. Besides that, the students would be little robots instead of human beings. How meaningless!

You: OK right sounds alright.

Principal: Right, so if the students choose not to get good grades and follow the rules, then they need to spend the rest of their lives torturing each other in the basement.

You: What? Why? Isn’t that horrific overkill? That’s sick, and evil!

Principal: No, no, it is totally OK because the students want to be there. They just hate me so much and don’t want to be around me ever again so they voluntarily hide themselves in the basement and torture each other.

You: Just what kind of school are you running? What could make them all hate you so much? Why not just kick them out? Why do you have to keep them in the basement? If they really don’t want to be around you and hate school, just send them home.

Principal: …[need an answer here]…

I really wish you’d drop this analogy, I’ve stated before that it is really, really lacking. I’ve already addressed the issue of “kicking them out,” or “sending them home” which, in this analogy, would equate to annihilation, which is contradictory to God’s will. There’s really nothing more I can say about it.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I thought the principal said the students choose to go to the basement. Post #65. The principal believes the basement is justified because the students choose to go there.

In the bounds of the analogy, they do chose to go to the basement, I don’t see what point you’re making here.

Principal: Oh come on…there aren’t that many students in the basement. The founder was just exaggerating. And, the many hundreds of successful graduates are just trying to scare the current students into getting good grades and following the rules. All of the students in the basement just really want to be there and freely choose to go there. They hate me so much, they’d rather torture themselves for the rest of their lives than do their homework or follow the rules.

You: Wow, those are some messed up kids! Why would any rational person think following the rules and getting good grades is so awful? They must be nuts. They need help, not punishment! It isn’t right to let children harm each other like that! At least send them home or something. Why prolong their agony?

They are given help, infinite help, right up until the point they look God in the face and make their decision. If they still won’t accept his help and his mercy, then that is their decision. Again, please stop using this analogy, it is a really, really bad one. God is not a principle intent on disciplining us and keeping us in line; he is a father, who loves us and does everything in his power short of overriding our free will to draw us to him.

Wow, so the people in hell have a supernatural, infinite stubbornness? From where do they get it? Are people really that irrational? And, if they’re that irrational, is it right to allow them to punish themselves indefinitely? I can see how you might say it would be right for God to keep them in existence indefinitely to give them a chance to repent. But, if God knows they aren’t going to repent, why keep them alive? Further, why make them in the first place?

You are thinking in finite terms. It’s not a matter of stubbornness, it’s a matter of either pride or guilt. the prideful refuse to accept God’s authority, and the guilty refuse to accept his forgiveness. We are shaping our souls through the decisions we make in our lives, and when we die, our soul will look God in the face and either say “I accept you,” or “I reject you.” This is done with the full awareness of what this decision means, and the consequences of it. Once invoke, our wills are set; after all, if you know everything relating to your decision then nothing can change your mind once you’ve made it. There is no new piece of information that could enter into the picture, and no catalyst which may make you rethink your decision. As such, the decision is a permanent and infinite one.

He made us because he desired to, because He wills for all of us to come to Him. Our final decision has no affect on this reality. Even when a soul is in Hell, God still loves them,and desires their repentance; but that soul will have nothing to do with it.

And, if there is a risk that our own children will choose to be irrationally stubborn and doomed to eternal torment, is it right to create them?

Asked and answered repeatedly, I’m done repeating myself.

Yes, excellent, I agree with you. Right, so the “choice” is whether to sin or not correct? Hell just happens to be the “repercussion” of the choice to sin without repentance right?

Correct, sort of. Hell is the result of us choosing ourselves over God. Our choices throughout life temper our soul either towards or away from God, which determines our final answer to his invitation. Hell does not exist to punish us for our sins, that is the purpose of Purgatory; Hell exists for those who will not accept God’s mercy.

So, it doesn’t truly make sense to say anyone “chooses” hell on this understanding, correct? We would be conflating the choice (sin) with the repercussion of that choice (hell).

Incorrect. When we chose sin we chose to separate ourselves from God. The only place in all of existence that allows this separation is Hell. When we knowingly sin, we knowingly chose to separate ourselves. (A person is not held morally culpable for a sin which they do not know is wrong. This is know as invincible ignorance.)

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Now you seem to be arguing that hell is good not because it is freely chosen, but rather because it is a fitting punishment or “repercussion” of a legitimate choice.

I am saying both, the existence of Hell is a good because we can chose to act against God. It is necessary because we chose it, and that ultimate choice the the result of the sum total of our sins, and the way we’ve formed our souls. A person who spends their life doing their best to follow God will not chose Hell, even if they did things that are objectively sinful. It is only those who engage their will to chose against God who will do that. As such, it is both the free choice we make and the repercussion for our choices.

Principal: The students deserve to be in the basement torturing each other for the rest of their lives because they freely chose to get bad grades and break the rules.

You: But, doesn’t the punishment seem kind of harsh for the offenses?

Principal: No, because I am so awesome and powerful, that even getting a B on a test is enough for me to have created a torture chamber basement where students hurt each other for the rest of their lives. If they choose not to get As, then they definitely deserve a life of nothing but continuous torment.

You: Sounds quite sadistic actually. If you are really so powerful and awesome, why must you spill out such wrath upon children? How have they harmed you? It would seem that the more awesome and powerful you are, the less their bad grades and rule breaking would harm you. If the degree of the punishment proceeds not from the gravity of the act, but from the vulnerability of the offended, then shouldn’t you just send them home?

Principal: …[answer here]…

Hell is God’s justice. Every time we sin we reject God. It is not a matter of hurting him or helping him, we can do neither. It is a matter of setting our souls either for or against him. If we set ourselves against him, he will respect that decision. If we set ourselves for him, he will respect that decision.

You analogy with the principle is not a proper manner of illustrating the relationship God has with his people. God himself describes his relationship with Judaism as one of deep love and longing (The Song of Songs.) He is the groom, and Israel (and, with Christ, the Church) is the bride, whom is longed for deeply and absolutely; and for whom His love is boundless and unending, even unto the point of death. By it’s very nature, this deep, limitless love can only be entered into with someone who reciprocates, and if someone does not reciprocate God’s love then he will not force himself onto them, and he will not force them to remain with him. The picture of the principle and his students is great imagery, but completely lacks any semblance of God’s love and relationship with us.

This is the last post I’m making in this topic. Feel free to respond to my post and repeat yourself again, but I will not be responding. I have stated and restated my arguments constantly, and the only new concept you’ve offered in this four-post diatribe was that of annihilation, which I had already refute prior to you even suggesting it. I am not trying to be mean, but there’s only so many times I can refute the same point before I run out of way to restate the arguments you haven’t addressed. My advice to you is to spend time in prayer asking God what HE thinks about all this. I’m sure if you approach him openly he’ll make himself known to you.

 

[simpleas]

I think because we are only human it can be difficult to understand the idea of everlasting pain and torture in a firey hell.
If we are blessed with children most of us want only the best for them, even if they may commit what is seen as an evil act, most I think would never want them to suffer forever, so why would God?

The medieval times saw hell as fire and damnation, but they also burnt people at the stake. Nowadays we see that as inhumane, although some people see the death penalty as justice and others do not.

So now hell is separation from God, and can be experienced in this life, no need to wait until eternal life. But finding God can be a struggle for all of us, would God punish us more in the eternal life if we fail to find him in this?

Some “evil” acts are due to mental illness.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You: No way! I love my children and want what’s best for them, not necessarily what they want. Any parent or teacher who just lets children have what they want based upon the judgement of the child is unfit!

Looks like you’ve put some unwanted words in my mouth. I do love my children and want what’s best for them. Neither hell nor non-existence is best for them. So I want heaven for them, as I want heaven for myself, and if they get there, that is supremely what they will want rather than not to exist at all.

In short, how can preventing a child from existing be what’s best for a child that does not exist?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I think because we are only human it can be difficult to understand the idea of everlasting pain and torture in a firey hell.
If we are blessed with children most of us want only the best for them, even if they may commit what is seen as an evil act, most I think would never want them to suffer forever, so why would God?

The medieval times saw hell as fire and damnation, but they also burnt people at the stake. Nowadays we see that as inhumane, although some people see the death penalty as justice and others do not.

So now hell is separation from God, and can be experienced in this life, no need to wait until eternal life. But finding God can be a struggle for all of us, would God punish us more in the eternal life if we fail to find him in this?

Some “evil” acts are due to mental illness.

Okay, I know I said I was done posting, but I wanted to address this briefly.

God doesn’t want them to suffer forever; God wills that all people be united with him in. That said, he will not force someone to remain with him if they don’t want to. Their decision has no affect on God’s will, nor does it negate his intent.

We view Hell as fire and torment because that is how Jesus describes it. We also view it as the complete absence of God because those people are described as being set aside and cast apart from the saved. There are other far more in depth philosophical and theological reasons for this, but I’ve already gone into those in other posts.

Hell is not “God’s punishment.” purgatory it the punishment of those who sin but repent. Hell is separation from God, the result of the soul’s active choice. It is not a punishment, it is the acceptance of the soul’s will. The fact that it is painful is the result of it being separated from God.

As for the point about mental illness, if a person has no control of their actions then they are not culpable for their sin and will not be punished for it. In order to sin gravely (separating yourself from God), it is absolutely necessary that you engage your will. If a mental illness prevents a person from engaging their will then there can be no sin. there can be a tragic action, and some evil may occur, but in order for it to be a sin, the will has to be involved.

 

[phil19034]

Principal: I’m a good guy, I always do the right thing, and I want all my students to make their own choices.

You: OK…

Principal: So, the students can choose whether or not to follow the rules and get good grades.

You: Right that seems obvious…

Principal: Yeah because I don’t want to run a meaningless school. School wouldn’t be school if the students just always did whatever I wanted them to do. Besides that, the students would be little robots instead of human beings. How meaningless!

You: OK right sounds alright.

**Principal: Right, so if the students choose not to get good grades and follow the rules, then they need to spend the rest of their lives torturing each other in the basement.

You: What? Why? Isn’t that horrific overkill? That’s sick, and evil!

Principal: No, no, it is totally OK because the students want** to be there. They just hate me so much and don’t want to be around me ever again so they voluntarily hide themselves in the basement and torture each other.

You: Just what kind of school are you running? What could make them all hate you so much? Why not just kick them out? Why do you have to keep them in the basement? If they really don’t want to be around you and hate school, just send them home.
Principal: …[need an answer here]…

This is not a good analogy at all. Your logic is flawed. Reasons:

(1) Kids who get bad grades are not kicked out of school (at least not public grade school). They repeat the grade (or class). They are giving the opportunity to try again.

(2) Kids to quit school or get kicked out of school have the opportunity to get a GED or go to night school to complete their diploma.

(3) not all successful careers in life require a high school diploma or college degree. Many students who are not good at academics are good at blue collar jobs.

(4) Even for kids who fail out of college, there are still paths to “academic redemption.” Once can attend a community college or a less prestigious college to earn their way back into a bachelor’s program.

(5) a student who graduated with a bachelor’s, but with a bad GPA, can still get into grad school by taking classes to prove that they have matured and are willing to work hard to earn a degree. Or even get accepted to an advanced degree (like law) by earning enough Graduate credit with a good GPA in order to have the undergrad GPA ignored.

Point is… there are PLENTY of ways for a bad student to redeem him/herself academically and/or financially. Kids who do terrible in school are NOT sentenced for life. Rather getting good grades and doing well in school makes it easier… but that doesn’t make all the difference either.

Several years out of school and experience matters more. I would rather have a person without a college degree, but with natural ability in the job vs. someone with a degree but no natural ability.

The “school equivalent to hell” would be the student who refusesto do anything for his entire life and ends his life homeless and without a cent to his name BECAUSE he refused to adjust his life, refused to ask family for help, and/or alienated everyone he knows due to all of the sinful, dangerous, reckless, inconsiderate, selfish actions of his life. AND NOT because of some mental disorder, sickness, etc… but because of pure vanity.

 

[Bradski]

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

Well, they have to die as well. I’m assuming that they’d live long enough to be culpable. You don’t love them less as they grow older.