If Hell exists, Having Children Is Evil

[PumpkinCookie]

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.

Ok so God commands a thing because it is good? You just said “but rather, God commands it because it is good.” Just want to make sure. Would you also say that “goodness” is therefore separate from and prior to God’s will? This may get us off topic, just wanted to ask.

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.

Yes friend I agree, we are not responsible for our children’s choices. I mean, we share some responsibility since we’re the ones who raise them and teach them how to live and be a human being. I wouldn’t say parents are totally “off the hook” for their children’s behavior, would you? But yes, our children make their own decisions and are responsible for the outcome.

Here is what I don’t understand, and please forgive me but I have not seen a single response to this. We may not be responsible for our children’s choice to go to hell, but we nonetheless share some of the guilt because our children wouldn’t exist in the first place without us having made them. You don’t seem to want to hear this and are frustrated. I don’t know how to be more clear, and no one has offered a solution or explained why we’re not guilty. All one would have to do is explain to me why we don’t share in the guilt. Here is why I think we do share in the guilt:

1. We know that anyone and everyone could “choose hell.”
2. We know that our own potential children could be among the people who “choose hell.”
3. We choose to create the children.

Our knowledge of the situation + our free choice to create the situation = some amount of guilt.

Now, I submit that hell is an unending evil. You may disagree. Indeed you have called it “good.” However, I would suggest that any person with an ounce of compassion would consider unending torment to be a heinous evil. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is an infinite evil.

Consider this: I think I have established that we share in at least some proportion of guilt for our children’s eternal fate (since we’re the ones who made them in the first place). Let’s say that proportion is only 1%. We’re 1% responsible for our children being in hell. If hell is an infinite, unmitigated evil, and we’re 1% guilty of it, how much guilt have we incurred? An infinite amount. 1% of infinity is infinite.

Please explain why we do not share in the blame (or praise) for our children’s ultimate fate. I fully agree that parents are not to blame (or praise) for their children’s choices, but they are solely to blame (or praise) for thier children’s existence. I do not understand why not.

If God will say to the parents whose children are in heaven “well done, good and faithful servant” why will he not say to those parents who children are in hell “it would have been better if your children had never been born?”

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.

I disagree. I think we are compelled to believe that which we think is true. I think that no one is able to believe that which they know is false. If anyone would make a solid argument to me about why hell is justified, I will believe it. I just need some good evidence or rational argument. In fact, if someone wants to PM me, I will give you my phone number and you can give me a call and we can have a discussion.

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.

Don’t need to yell friend, I’m listening. Yes, I agree that having children in and of itself is not evil. However, the belief in eternal hell is what makes having children “reckless endangerment” of the highest degree.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

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.

Yes I agree. It would be horrible to run a school system the way the principal in my dialogue has set it up. Good thing our schools aren’t like that! However, the question is whether the universe is run by a thing like my principal. Some say my dialogue isn’t good enough and doesn’t fully describe the situation. I agree, and I would welcome someone else’s contribution. Is there a better analogy? I would be very happy if someone would offer one. Thanks!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

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.

I am literally unable to understand this. If he doesn’t want something to happen, and he is all-powerful and can do anything…then why doesn’t it happen? If he wants everyone to be in heaven, and free will does not “negate his intent” then why are some people not in heaven? This is impossible, unless he either does not intend for them to be in heaven, or free will negates his intent. You can’t hold both of these, it is a logical impossibility.

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.

The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

-the CCC p. 1035.

The RCC states here in plain language that hell is a place of punishment. Do you disagree?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

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?

Yes, it doesn’t make sense to say that non-existence is what’s best for a child that doesn’t exist.

However, the issue here is that existence entails what I consider to be an unacceptable risk of infinite loss. It may be better for children not to exist than for them to be exposed to the risk of eternal hell. Why is this not the case? Please explain.

Are you familiar with the legal concept of reckless endangerment? Here is a legal definition:

Reckless endangerment is a crime consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. The accused person isn’t required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions. The charge may occur in various contexts, such as, among others, domestic cases, car accidents, construction site accidents, testing sites, domestic/child abuse situations, and hospital abuse.

What I’m trying to say, is that having children while holding the belief in eternal hell is reckless endangerment perpetrated against the child. Simply existing and having free will puts them at “substantial risk” of choosing to go to hell, which is the worst disaster imaginable. No one intends for their children to choose to go to hell, but the potential outcome is so horrific and evil, that it makes it wrong to put someone else in that position. Add to that the many RC saints, popes, doctors, councils, mystics, visions, and Jesus himself insisting that a minority of people choose heaven, and you have a very solid case for “reckless endangerment” in my opinion. It isn’t right to expose someone to such a catastrophic loss. Is it? Please explain why.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

You are wrong because;

John 6: 37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me,
38 because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.
39 And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it [on] the last day.
40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him [on] the last day.”

So we have the assurance of Heaven through our Lord Jesus Christ who died for our sins, so if we do in fact “remain in Him” the chances of Heaven are assured and the ultimate prize is won.

Therefore bringing children into the world, having them baptized and teaching them the Faith is greatest gift we can give to the Father!

I apologize for ignoring you DCNBILL. The problem is that we don’t know if our children will “remain in Him” and thus, by having children, we may potentially be giving a gift to satan rather than God! We could be complicit in adding another soul to hell. How horrible!! Best not risk it I think. Why not?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

How is this any difference than stating everyone dies - 100%, therefore no one should be born to spare them.

I’m sorry for ignoring you! This is different because death is a common outcome to all people and is finite and mitigated by a relatively brief duration. I will gladly accept death as an unavoidable part of life. Hell though, is an unmitigated, unending evil. I don’t think there is a sufficient reason why one would cause another to be exposed to the risk of ending up there, in my opinion.

Would you let your child attend a summer camp where some of the kids kill themselves? Of course not, that would be irresponsible of you. So, why would you bring them into a world where there is a chance they might choose to go to a place of everlasting suffering and torment? Wouldn’t it be wrong to do this? Why not?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Absolutely! God does not roll dice to see who goes to heaven or hell. Each person chooses where they go by either accepting or rejecting God.

Sorry for ignoring you. Yes, God does not roll the dice…but we do! God knows with infallible certainty whether or not our children our going to choose hell. However, we do not. Our knowledge of the potential risk and the magnitude of loss makes it morally wrong to expose our children to this situation. Does that make it more clear?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Since God told us to be fruitful and multiply, and God is all good all the time, then it must be good to have children.

Sorry for ignoring this. I agree with your statement in so far as I believe eternal hell is a pagan fable. I’m not sure how this statement addresses my contention that the choice to have children is evil because we knowingly expose them to the risk of eternal, unmitigated evil.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Life is inherently good. I would say the evil would be if the parents failed to impart on their children a religious formation so that the child would choose Heaven and not Hell.

The OP’s argument is an argument against not just existence but, more to the point, free will.

Sorry for ignoring your post! Yes, given the RCC’s account of reality, failing to do everything possible to convince one’s children to receive the sacraments and avoid sin would be “criminal negligence.”

I have no quarrel with free-will, although I will admit that it seems like no one agrees about precisely what we mean by it. I do assert that existence is evil because of the potential of hell and our uncertainty about whether or not we will choose it. There is nothing we can do about our own existence, but we can choose not to expose others to such a terrible risk.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Sorry for ignoring your post! Yes, given the RCC’s account of reality, failing to do everything possible to convince one’s children to receive the sacraments and avoid sin would be “criminal negligence.”

I have no quarrel with free-will, although I will admit that it seems like no one agrees about precisely what we mean by it. I do assert that existence is evil because of the potential of hell and our uncertainty about whether or not we will choose it. There is nothing we can do about our own existence, but we can choose not to expose others to such a terrible risk.

what?? Do you want the entire species of humans to die out because of your crazy fear of Hell???

 

[openmind77]

…
6) Choosing to have a child is evil (since there is a non-zero chance that the child will experience the worst possible outcome in life).
…

Personally I don’t believe that anyone gets sent to hell for eternity least of all children.

Even if you believe in eternal hell (and btw that is not a Hindu or a pagan belief, but a Christian one), since there is an excellent chance that the child will end up in heaven anyway (especially if you bring it up correctly), I think it is OK to take that chance.

But to take your own logic to its extreme, the best thing you could do for the child, is to give birth to the baby, baptize it and then immediately kill it (so he does not have a chance to commit any sins). By doing so, you are guaranteeing that he will be spending eternity in heaven after death with a 100% certainty (and 0% chance of going to hell).

So according to your logic, is that a good thing to do?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

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.

Then you take it incorrectly. Lots of people do. To exist is good. Existence is the fundamental good, upon which other goods build. To be in hell is bad, but “badness” is not its own fundamental thing that exists independently of good, but is rather an absence of some of the good that ought to be there. In the case of hell, one is existing (which is good) without the acceptance of God that ought to be there (without a good that ought to be there).

For the mining operation, the question wasn’t whether or not you bear some responsibility for the existence of the operation, that’s obvious. The question was whether or not in funding it, with the certain knowledge that it had a very good possibility of success, you did something evil simply because those involved failed horribly.

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.

But you are also a) participating in the creation (which is good) of a person (which is good). Those are both good. The further ability of that person to make moral choices is also good. It is the abuse of said choices that the person makes that is bad. But that is done by the other person. And the fact that the person, in the end, ends up in the state most compatible with how he has chosen to form himself is also good. Even if it means that the person will be without a good he should not have been without (namely, heaven). Now, if by responsibility, you mean that the situation would not have come about without your actions, then sure (of course, it could easily have not come about even with your actions).

But that is not the same as moral responsibility. 9/11 wouldn’t have happened if no one had invented air planes, but we don’t impute moral responsibility for it onto the Wright brothers. Everything can be used for evil, and the appropriate response is not to bury our heads in the sand and do nothing on the off chance that some other person will make choices that rely on the fundamentally good things that we’ve done in order to do evil. People make bad choices, but good is really and truly greater than evil, and to refrain from good to avoid the evil that others may bring out of it is not the answer.

There is more that could be said, but in short the three main errors in your argument stem from a) failing to realize that existence is good in itself, b) treating evil as its own thing independent of good to be avoided, and c) over prioritizing the avoidance of evil outcomes over the doing of good. Remember that heaven is much more infinitely good than hell is bad.

 

[DCNBILL]

I apologize for ignoring you DCNBILL. The problem is that we don’t know if our children will “remain in Him” and thus, by having children, we may potentially be giving a gift to satan rather than God! We could be complicit in adding another soul to hell. How horrible!! Best not risk it I think. Why not?

We do not know the outcome of anything. This does not prevent us from living our lives in the hope that things will be all right. With this method of thinking one would not even get out of bed in the morning.

Look, God made us, He wants us to be with Him for eternity, all we have to do is choose that for ourselves and live our lives accordingly. The Holy Spirit will be there to help us.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Personally I don’t believe that anyone gets sent to hell for eternity least of all children.

Even if you believe in eternal hell (and btw that is not a Hindu or a pagan belief, but a Christian one), since there is an excellent chance that the child will end up in heaven anyway (especially if you bring it up correctly), I think it is OK to take that chance.

But to take your own logic to its extreme, the best thing you could do for the child, is to give birth to the baby, baptize it and then immediately kill it (so he does not have a chance to commit any sins). By doing so, you are guaranteeing that he will be spending eternity in heaven after death with a 100% certainty (and 0% chance of going to hell).

So according to your logic, is that a good thing to do?

Given the belief in eternal hell, and belief in the RCC’s idea of sacraments, it would be most fortunate for children to die right after baptism yes. The direct killing of a child would be wrong though, and I think the maxim that “one may not do evil so that a greater good will result” is generally true.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Then you take it incorrectly. Lots of people do. To exist is good. Existence is the fundamental good, upon which other goods build. To be in hell is bad, but “badness” is not its own fundamental thing that exists independently of good, but is rather an absence of some of the good that ought to be there. In the case of hell, one is existing (which is good) without the acceptance of God that ought to be there (without a good that ought to be there).

For the mining operation, the question wasn’t whether or not you bear some responsibility for the existence of the operation, that’s obvious. The question was whether or not in funding it, with the certain knowledge that it had a very good possibility of success, you did something evil simply because those involved failed horribly.

But you are also a) participating in the creation (which is good) of a person (which is good). Those are both good. The further ability of that person to make moral choices is also good. It is the abuse of said choices that the person makes that is bad. But that is done by the other person. And the fact that the person, in the end, ends up in the state most compatible with how he has chosen to form himself is also good. Even if it means that the person will be without a good he should not have been without (namely, heaven). Now, if by responsibility, you mean that the situation would not have come about without your actions, then sure (of course, it could easily have not come about even with your actions).

But that is not the same as moral responsibility. 9/11 wouldn’t have happened if no one had invented air planes, but we don’t impute moral responsibility for it onto the Wright brothers. Everything can be used for evil, and the appropriate response is not to bury our heads in the sand and do nothing on the off chance that some other person will make choices that rely on the fundamentally good things that we’ve done in order to do evil. People make bad choices, but good is really and truly greater than evil, and to refrain from good to avoid the evil that others may bring out of it is not the answer.

There is more that could be said, but in short the three main errors in your argument stem from a) failing to realize that existence is good in itself, b) treating evil as its own thing independent of good to be avoided, and c) over prioritizing the avoidance of evil outcomes over the doing of good. Remember that heaven is much more infinitely good than hell is bad.

OK I understand your position. There are a few disagreements here that may be fundamental. For instance, I think that you have to affirm this statement:

1. “I would rather go to hell and experience eternal torment than to never have existed in the first place.”

Do you disagree with this statement? Why?

Secondly, I think my sense of moral responsibility is more expansive than others. I do think the Wright brothers are proportionally responsible for 9/11. If I had to assign a proportion for how much responsibility they would have, it would be a tiny fraction of 1%, since there are so many other moral agents involved. Clearly, the terrorists who chose to kill bear a large proportion of the moral responsibility, but that doesn’t mean the Wright brothers are totally and completely blameless. They may be responsible in some way, but I do not think they are guilty because they had no knowledge of the future of aircraft technology and geopolitics. We don’t intuit that they’re guilty because they are so far removed from the evil act of 9/11 that they couldn’t reasonably be held to account for something of which they could not have any knowledge.

However, our relation to our own children is not similarly remote (one hopes). We are not only solely responsible for their existence, we also share a large portion of blame or praise for the outcome of their lives, since we believed that they’re either going to heaven or to eternal damnation before we chose to have them (or engage in sex, whatever).

Thirdly, I agree with you that it is sometimes a mistake to avoid doing good in order to avoid potential evil. Sometimes, taking risks is warranted. If one can absorb the loss, or recover from it, and the prize is significantly worthwhile, then take the risk! However, in this particular case, the magnitude of the evil is so great, and so likely (more likely than not, according to many RC authorities and Jesus himself) that it is reckless and evil to force another person to take that risk.

Would you take out a trillion dollar loan in your child’s name with his or her life as the security and then use the money to invest in some ambiguous outer-space mining project? If outer-space mining doesn’t turn out to be worthwhile, and your child cannot pay his or her debt, the creditors will be allowed to execute the child. Does that sound like a gamble you’d want to make?

So, similarly, what I’m saying is that it isn’t responsible or good to expose a child to the threat of eternal hell. If that child chooses hell, he or she will face a loss infinitely worse than a trillion dollars debt and execution.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

We do not know the outcome of anything. This does not prevent us from living our lives in the hope that things will be all right. With this method of thinking one would not even get out of bed in the morning.

Look, God made us, He wants us to be with Him for eternity, all we have to do is choose that for ourselves and live our lives accordingly. The Holy Spirit will be there to help us.

And yet, I get out of bed every morning with no issue. I’m about to work a 16 hour day with a smile on my face, like I do many days. You know why? Because I believe that life entails unavoidable and acceptable risks but also comes with valuable rewards. Sure, I could die in a car wreck today, or have a heart attack. That’s OK. It’s just temporary pain. Or, someone I love could get cancer, or I could become paralyzed. Again, temporary pain. Plus, now that I do exist, I can’t “get out of it” and I don’t want to because things are going great for me actually. I guess if my life became just unbearably awful like Job’s or something then I would wish for death, but I don’t so : ).

However, living one’s life on the brink of eternal doom is not an acceptable risk. It is unending suffering and torment.

If life is really like that, then I would be tempted to hide in my room all day and pray and fast in silence. Or, I would have to wear sackcloth and ashes and rove about the streets screaming “repent, repent, hell is knocking at your door!!” all day every day until I die from exhaustion. Those would be the only moral ways to live life, given the reality of hell and the RCC’s other teachings. Having children would be a horrendous crime and waste of time. Think of all the people already on their way to hell. To add to that while neglecting to try to save them would be evil.

Oh wait…the lives I just described are similar to the RCC’s greatest saints. Answer me this: how many of the great saints had children (that were not also “God incarnate”?)Can they be counted on one hand? Seems like this mode of thought isn’t so foreign to Roman Catholic belief now is it?

 

[PRmerger]

How is this any difference than stating everyone dies - 100%, therefore no one should be born to spare them.

Egg-zactly.

Or everyone suffers, therefore no child should be born to spare them.

Heck, every child should receive immunizations. But they hurt. Therefore, no child should be born, so we can save them from getting immunized.

 

[PRmerger]

Because I believe that life entails unavoidable and acceptable risks but also comes with valuable rewards.

Aaaaannnnd, there’s your answer to your question, Pumpkin.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Aaaaannnnd, there’s your answer to your question, Pumpkin.

Again we really need a laughter emoticon. So I guess that’s it then. Problem solved. Glib retorts have solved the central crisis of Christian theology. I can’t respond but please don’t take my silence as abdication. I will be back tomorrow. Best, PC.

 

[tonyrey]

Given the belief in eternal hell, and belief in the RCC’s idea of sacraments, it would be most fortunate for children to die right after baptism yes. The direct killing of a child would be wrong though, and I think the maxim that “one may not do evil so that a greater good will result” is generally true.

You are forgetting that we should always choose the lesser evil. If we knew for certain that children were going to be the victims of constant, prolonged torture throughout the whole of their lives it would be wrong not to make any attempt to save them from that horrific fate even if the only way to so is to give them an overdose of sleeping tablets. Thank God we shall never be in such an extreme situation because it is impossible for such certainty to exist but it doesn’t alter the truth of the principle. The fact that we are justified in killing ourselves rather than reveal information that will lead to the torture and death of others demonstrates that the principle of choosing the lesser evil overrides all other considerations. Otherwise Jesus wouldn’t have allowed Himself to be tortured and murdered to deliver us from evil. He could be regarded as an accomplice because He could have avoided that fate but He was fully justified. The motive and the consequences are more important than the act or failure to act.