If Hell exists, Having Children Is Evil

[Zachary]

Consider this situation:

God wills for you to do X.

You choose to do non-X.

Can it be said that God is omnipotent in this situation if the definition of omnipotence is that one’s will is always accomplished?

If you say yes, please explain why.

To me it seems the answer is clearly not.

Love captain Sisko. I have seen every single episode of all of the Star Trek shows. Such great stories of friendship, courage, and discovery. Gotta go, be back later.

Free will

drops mic

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Can it be said that God is omnipotent in this situation if the definition of omnipotence is that one’s will is always accomplished? If you say yes, please explain why. . . .

God has infinite power.
He created and maintains everything.
In us, He created a being with free will - gods, who in a finite sense, can create themselves.
His will is always accomplished.
Even in the case of Satan, whose role it may have been to bring us knowledge of God’s love for us;
try as he did to deceive, his actions were employed by God to make ever so clear the message through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

Consider this situation:

God wills for you to do X.

You choose to do non-X.

Can it be said that God is omnipotent in this situation if the definition of omnipotence is that one’s will is always accomplished?

If you say yes, please explain why.

To me it seems the answer is clearly not.

Love captain Sisko. I have seen every single episode of all of the Star Trek shows. Such great stories of friendship, courage, and discovery. Gotta go, be back later.

You need to acknowledge the difference between God’s antecedent will, and God’s consequent will. The antecedent will is, essentially and inevitably, fulfilled. The consequent will, however, is that which has its origins in our choices.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

That is not the definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence is having complete or unlimited power. God can still be omnipotent and at the same time have his will not followed by humans since he gave us free will to either follow or not follow him.

For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent.

-St. Augustine, City of God, Book 5, Chapter 10.

Further, read this: newadvent.org/summa/1019.htm#article6

PRMerger, this is for you as well, and I’ll get to your analogy soon. In the reply to objection 1 (which is possibly the best objection to the omnipotence of the RC God) Aquinas attempts to reconcile the obvious and blatant contradiction inherent in the idea that God wills “all men to be saved” and yet most men are not. His first two responses, following Augustine, are sophistical attempts to redefine the clear and obvious meaning of the word “all.”

The third response is an intellectually bankrupt argument based upon a bogus distinction between “antecedent” and “consequent” will, which PRMerger has mentioned. The reason this argument is intellectually bankrupt, and why the distinction is bogus, is because God has perfect knowledge.

Aquinas’ example of murderer is insufficient, because God has always and will always know that the man would end up as a murderer. God cannot possibly have “antecedent” or “consequent” will in the way Aquinas defines because his being and knowledge are perfect and immutable. Aquinas attributes a kind of cosmic insincerity to God here. In God’s mind, the man is a murderer in the “eternal now,” so it doesn’t make sense for his judgement to “change” based upon a change in the object. God does not make decisions and cannot perceive “change” since he is immutable and knows everything always.

I had a face-to-face discussion several years ago with a Dominican friar who is an expert in this field about this subject, and he admitted that this argument makes no sense (for those who prefer argument from authority). The best answer I’ve received from RC sources is “it’s a deep mystery” which is a euphemism for “it doesn’t make sense but we have to pretend to believe it.”

 

[PumpkinCookie]

A better analogy would be this:

Father and son have a falling out due to some reckless behavior on the part of the son. The son tells his father that he hates him and leaves. No matter how many times the father attempts to reach out to the son to mend the relationship, the son refuses. Over time, the father stops calling the son but still longs for his son. Others try to intercede, but the son’s hardness of heart keeps him from accepting his father’s love and forgiveness.

The father dies and the son is still not remorseful, and later the son dies without remorse.

This would be a good analogy.

Alright let’s work with this. If I may, the son needs some more siblings? Also, let’s talk about this from the point of view of one of the siblings.

Let’s say a man has 100 children. Equal portions of happy and “good” boys and girls. You are one of those boys. As you and your siblings grow up, you notice that your father isn’t around. In fact, he hasn’t been around for years. No one can even remember what he looks like, although some paint pictures and create statues. About 30 of your brothers and sisters think he looks like a Jewish man and wants a personal relationship with all of your brothers and sisters. About 20 of your brothers and sisters think he is so great, he doesn’t look like anything, and if you try to make a picture of him, you should die! Another 20 of your brothers and sisters think that he has many appearances, an elephant, a flute-playing woman, etc. About 15 of your brothers and sisters think he has been gone so long, that he must have never existed in the first place! Eight of your brothers think all kinds of things, and they mostly believe what they’ve heard from their elder siblings about what their father is like. Seven of your brothers and sisters think your father looks like nothing at all, and that we should stop desiring our father and embrace oblivion.

Within this family background, among the brothers and sisters who believe that the father is a Jewish man who desires a loving personal relationship with his family, you notice that many of your brothers and sisters are leaving the family. They engage in reckless behavior and have a “falling out” with the father. They refuse to make amends, they refuse to change their ways, and they just walk away. Some of your older siblings have told you that most of the children end up doing this. For some reason, most of your brothers and sisters choose to make the father upset and engage in behaviors against the rules. If one breaks the rules and refuses to say “sorry” one will eventually choose to leave the house.

You’ve heard from your older siblings that if the brother or sister chooses to leave the house, they will inevitably end up in a horrible place! The place is so horrible, it is like a perpetual fire filled with evil bullies who never tire of viciously beating and whipping anyone who enters this place. These bullies are also the father’s children. They’re older, stronger, and more intelligent than you and your similarly aged or slightly older siblings. These children had a falling-out with your father long ago, and now their sole occupation is to torment you and your current siblings and hopefully get you to leave the house. Remember, your siblings also maintain that your father is strong and good, and he could keep these bullies away from you if he wanted to.

Now, you notice that most of your siblings are deciding to leave the house, and you think they will end up in a terrible place full of relentless suffering and torment (based on what they older siblings say). There is nothing anyone can do to stop them from leaving the house, and the choice to leave is totally un-coerced. The decision to leave the house is quite popular, but the consequences are so horrific. Here is the question:

Is it right for you to make this man a grandfather? Is it right for you to bring any more people into this family, knowing the massive confusion and the likelihood of horrific consequences? I submit that, no, it is not right to bring a child into this kind of life (if this is the situation).

However, I do not believe this is the situation, thank goodness. This illustration is far from perfect but I think it goes far enough to demonstrate my point.

 

[PRmerger]

The reason this argument is intellectually bankrupt, and why the distinction is bogus, is because God has perfect knowledge.

Nonsequitur, Pumpkin.

God’s perfect knowledge is not contradictory to free will, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, nor any of the objections you proffer.

 

[tonyrey]

“living one’s life on the brink of eternal doom” is the direct consequence of not trusting in God’s love and mercy. It is better not to believe rather than have a distorted belief.

If we are genuinely free we cannot possibly be at risk because** it depends entirely on us whether we choose to reject God. **Nor is it a momentary decision. It is a decision we make when taking all the advantages and advantages into careful consideration. We know full well what the consequences will be because God does everything possible to warn us and prevent us from deceiving ourselves. We’re not compelled to believe having our own kingdom is far better than having to obey His laws. We have no excuse whatsoever in the clear light of eternity.

The question is: is it right to force this situation upon another person?

Your question is unreasonable because it is impossible to give us a choice to exist before we exist.

The glib answer of “God says it is right so therefore it is” is unsatisfactory. This is an appeal to authority (namely all the teachings/interpretations of the RCC) that I (and most of our fellow human beings) do not accept as legitimate or truthful. In fact, I am here engaged in the project of exposing a contradiction and failure within that system to show that it isn’t self-consistent (and thus can’t be the truth), or requires the destruction of meaningful language, or the acceptance of radically counter-intuitive corollaries that are deeply ugly. One cannot appeal to the system I suspect is corrupt to justify the truth value of that system! This isn’t an effective means of convincing anyone other than those who already believe in the totality of the system and are OK calling obviously sinister contradictions “divine mysteries.”

Actually, my position is stronger than this to be honest. I actually think many of the RCC’s teachings are literally unbelievable in the sense that they can’t be held by a rational person. Part of my project here is to expose this to readers so they will begin to see that they don’t even actually believe what they think they believe. I submit that no one actually believes hell is justifiable, or that the Eucharist “changes substance,” or that the RCC “speaks with the voice of God.” RCC believers parrot the creed and go through the motions, but if only people would examine the beliefs in depth they would see that they can’t be held, in my opinion. I believe this because I had to confront the fact that I did not actually believe many of the things required for RC faith upon deep and serious study.

Whether you believe or not has no effect on reality nor are the Church’s other teachings relevant to the topic. The simple fact is that we are faced with a choice. That in itself is not evil because it is the very purpose of our existence. Do you deny we should have the right to choose what to believe and how to live? If so you are rejecting the value of being alive** as a person** and not an animal or machine.

I now experience such a freedom and joy since discovering that many of the propositions required for belief are simply not true. I tried so hard to convince myself of the RCC’s beliefs but just haven’t been successful. I retain an element of doubt of course, but my purpose here is to draw out the best arguments to either confirm or disconfirm my hypothesis.

It is certainly wrong to try to believe in hell if you are absolutely convinced it is an evil concept (rather than a consequence of evil) but you admit you may be mistaken. That is the reason why you started this thread and by doing so you are in the very process of fulfilling the purpose of life! In the words of John Keats this is “a vale of soul-making” in which we cannot develop and mature without an element of suffering. He wasn’t a Christian but he appreciated the value of Christ’s teaching and lived like a Christian. For example, he regarded sex without love as bestial. You too have Christian values because you are deeply concerned about what you consider to be injustice. That is the basis of that belief?

Secondarily, the glib response that “free-will makes it all OK” is also unacceptable. This is not a sufficient justification for hell, or more importantly for the choice to have children while holding the belief in the RCC’s version of hell, because we do not have the ability to know whether our children will “choose hell” and thus it is unconscionable to expose them to the the risk of infinite loss. I feel that I have explained this clearly but maybe I’ve failed.

The abuse of free will is a sufficient justification for hell because we know from what occurs in this world that sooner or later one of our descendants may prefer to be evil rather than good. It would be wrong to deprive all of them of the possibility of life on this earth just because one of them **may **choose that option. We don’t even have to be sure for the simple reason that we can never be absolutely sure of anything. A possibility is not a sufficient ground for remaining childless. If we believe in justice at all we should trust God that ultimately we all receive exactly what we deserve. You know what the only alternative is…

 

[phil19034]

Alright let’s work with this. If I may, the son needs some more siblings? Also, let’s talk about this from the point of view of one of the siblings.

Let’s say a man has 100 children. Equal portions of happy and “good” boys and girls. You are one of those boys. As you and your siblings grow up, you notice that your father isn’t around. In fact, he hasn’t been around for years. No one can even remember what he looks like, although some paint pictures and create statues. About 30 of your brothers and sisters think he looks like a Jewish man and wants a personal relationship with all of your brothers and sisters. About 20 of your brothers and sisters think he is so great, he doesn’t look like anything, and if you try to make a picture of him, you should die! Another 20 of your brothers and sisters think that he has many appearances, an elephant, a flute-playing woman, etc. About 15 of your brothers and sisters think he has been gone so long, that he must have never existed in the first place! Eight of your brothers think all kinds of things, and they mostly believe what they’ve heard from their elder siblings about what their father is like. Seven of your brothers and sisters think your father looks like nothing at all, and that we should stop desiring our father and embrace oblivion.

Within this family background, among the brothers and sisters who believe that the father is a Jewish man who desires a loving personal relationship with his family, you notice that many of your brothers and sisters are leaving the family. They engage in reckless behavior and have a “falling out” with the father. They refuse to make amends, they refuse to change their ways, and they just walk away. Some of your older siblings have told you that most of the children end up doing this. For some reason, most of your brothers and sisters choose to make the father upset and engage in behaviors against the rules. If one breaks the rules and refuses to say “sorry” one will eventually choose to leave the house.

You’ve heard from your older siblings that if the brother or sister chooses to leave the house, they will inevitably end up in a horrible place! The place is so horrible, it is like a perpetual fire filled with evil bullies who never tire of viciously beating and whipping anyone who enters this place. These bullies are also the father’s children. They’re older, stronger, and more intelligent than you and your similarly aged or slightly older siblings. These children had a falling-out with your father long ago, and now their sole occupation is to torment you and your current siblings and hopefully get you to leave the house. Remember, your siblings also maintain that your father is strong and good, and he could keep these bullies away from you if he wanted to.

Now, you notice that most of your siblings are deciding to leave the house, and you think they will end up in a terrible place full of relentless suffering and torment (based on what they older siblings say). There is nothing anyone can do to stop them from leaving the house, and the choice to leave is totally un-coerced. The decision to leave the house is quite popular, but the consequences are so horrific. Here is the question:

Is it right for you to make this man a grandfather? Is it right for you to bring any more people into this family, knowing the massive confusion and the likelihood of horrific consequences? I submit that, no, it is not right to bring a child into this kind of life (if this is the situation).

However, I do not believe this is the situation, thank goodness. This illustration is far from perfect but I think it goes far enough to demonstrate my point.

Regarding how the father looks: there is a correct answer. Truth isn’t relative. Many of the children are simply wrong. The children might not remember how he looks, etc… but their is a correct answer regarding this appearance and the fact that he exists.

Is right to make the man a grandfather, yes it is. It’s not his fault that some children choose to believe that He does not love them.

I’m going to flip this on you.

Let’s assume that my father is dead (he’s not). My brothers are gang members (they are not) and I’m a good dude. Why should I not be allowed to bring a child into the world due to their stupid & evil actions?

Now, let me ask you this. Is it safe to assume that you don’t believe in God? If so, let’s attack this from a purely secular and non-theistic point of view. Do you believe that the world is too evil to bring children into it? Do you believe that we should all stop have kids and let the human race go extinct?

Because if the answer is “no,” then how could it be evil to have children?

My friend… I strongly believe that you have your concept of Morals, Ethics and Values mixed up. There is a hierarchy to them: Morals must shape your Ethics and your Morals & Ethics shape you values. If you do it in any other order or if you put Ethics first, your sense of right & wrong become out of whack.

God Bless & may The Lord grant us all wisdom and understanding.
Amen.

 

[tonyrey]

If we are genuinely free we cannot possibly be at risk because** it depends entirely on us whether we choose to reject God. **Nor is it a momentary decision. It is a decision we make when taking all the advantages and advantages into careful consideration.

Correction:

It is a decision we make when taking all the advantages and disadvantages into careful consideration.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

If we are genuinely free we cannot possibly be at risk because** it depends entirely on us whether we choose to reject God. **Nor is it a momentary decision. It is a decision we make when taking all the advantages and advantages into careful consideration. We know full well what the consequences will be because God does everything possible to warn us and prevent us from deceiving ourselves. We’re not compelled to believe having our own kingdom is far better than having to obey His laws. We have no excuse whatsoever in the clear light of eternity.

OK we’re talking past each other I think. The risk is that our children will “choose hell.” If it “depends entirely” on them, and they have meaningful choices, then they’re at risk for all we know.

Your question is unreasonable because it is impossible to give us a choice to exist before we exist.

Yes, we’re talking past each other. This particular thread isn’t about our choices, but the risk we put on our children by forcing them to exist. We don’t have to have children right? No one is compelled to have sex (except rape victims God forbid). We do have a choice about whether or not we will create children to bring into a situation where they might choose eternal torment.

Whether you believe or not has no effect on reality nor are the Church’s other teachings relevant to the topic. The simple fact is that we are faced with a choice. That in itself is not evil because it is the very purpose of our existence. Do you deny we should have the right to choose what to believe and how to live? If so you are rejecting the value of being alive** as a person** and not an animal or machine.

Yes, I agree that our beliefs have no effect on objective reality. However, what I’m saying, is that many RC beliefs cannot correspond to reality because they are logical impossibilities. If I say to you, “behold the round square” I can assure you that whatever object I present to you is most certainly not a round square even if you think you believe it is! Further, I don’t think anyone is able to hold a belief like that in the first place. Wanting to believe something and actually believing it are two different things.

It is certainly wrong to try to believe in hell if you are absolutely convinced it is an evil concept (rather than a consequence of evil) but you admit you may be mistaken. That is the reason why you started this thread and by doing so you are in the very process of fulfilling the purpose of life! In the words of John Keats this is “a vale of soul-making” in which we cannot develop and mature without an element of suffering. He wasn’t a Christian but he appreciated the value of Christ’s teaching and lived like a Christian. For example, he regarded sex without love as bestial. You too have Christian values because you are deeply concerned about what you consider to be injustice. That is the basis of that belief?

Following Socrates, I believe that doubt proceeds from wisdom like smoke from a fire. He who has no doubt whatsoever is the most blind, in my opinion. I am not absolutely convinced of anything at all, I don’t think. I submit that I do not have Christian values so much as “Jewish” values. People say western civilization is founded upon Judeo-Christian values. I am a believer in “Judeo” values I suppose.

The abuse of free will is a sufficient justification for hell… You know what the only alternative is…

The problem with this response (I believe William Lane Craig has suggested this as well) is that there is no one that we are “depriving” of life. These future descendants are merely possible, and it doesn’t make sense to say that they can be “deprived” since they don’t exist at all!

Secondarily, “we can’t be absolutely sure of anything” is not a good defense against the charge of reckless endangerment! By having children, one is making it so that another human being is risking eternal, infinite loss. We have good reason to believe, given the truth of Roman Catholicism, that any given child will more likely than not “choose hell.” Further, “hell” is such a fearsome and horrific outcome, that even the slightest expose to that liability would be unconscionable.

Imagine if you were standing outside of a hospital with your kids, and the doctor standing outside said “Welcome to my hospital. Just so you know, a horrific infectious disease is spreading throughout the hospital. It seems like more than half of the people who walk into this hospital get the disease. The disease causes you to slowly bleed to death while suffocating and experiencing extreme agony continuously until death. Most of the people scream and beg for death. It usually takes about 5 years to die, and there is no cure whatsoever. You can avoid the disease if you wash your hands very carefully, wear this gas mask, and don’t touch anything. If you can stay in this hospital for 10 years, I’ll give you a million dollars and let you go.” I submit that you would be insane and/or evil to go into this hospital, much less push your kids in the door!

Later, when you’ve been arrested and the judge is going to take your children away from you on the charge of reckless endangerment, your lawyer’s defense of “well judge, we couldn’t be sure whether or not the children would get the disease, and besides that, it is totally dependent upon their choice anyway. If they were to get the illness, it would be their own fault, and they would deserve it” would be laughed out of the court and you would be thrown in prison.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Now, let me ask you this. Is it safe to assume that you don’t believe in God? If so, let’s attack this from a purely secular and non-theistic point of view. Do you believe that the world is too evil to bring children into it? Do you believe that we should all stop have kids and let the human race go extinct?

Because if the answer is “no,” then how could it be evil to have children?

.

Yes I would like the answer to this question too. Pumpkin seems to be avoiding this question.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Regarding how the father looks: there is a correct answer. Truth isn’t relative. Many of the children are simply wrong. The children might not remember how he looks, etc… but their is a correct answer regarding this appearance and the fact that he exists.

Yes I agree, there must be a right answer. However, that doesn’t do anything to counter my point that we live in a world of mass confusion. If the punishment for getting the “wrong answer” is eternal hell, and most people end up getting “the wrong answer” then it is wrong to have children, because more likely than not they will be among the subset of those who get the wrong answer. This is a general maxim. Don’t just think about the babies being born within a RC family, think about the majority of humanity born with the “wrong answer.”

Is right to make the man a grandfather, yes it is. It’s not his fault that some children choose to believe that He does not love them.

I’m going to flip this on you.

Let’s assume that my father is dead (he’s not). My brothers are gang members (they are not) and I’m a good dude. Why should I not be allowed to bring a child into the world due to their stupid & evil actions?

Now, let me ask you this. Is it safe to assume that you don’t believe in God? If so, let’s attack this from a purely secular and non-theistic point of view. Do you believe that the world is too evil to bring children into it? Do you believe that we should all stop have kids and let the human race go extinct?

Because if the answer is “no,” then how could it be evil to have children?

My friend… I strongly believe that you have your concept of Morals, Ethics and Values mixed up. There is a hierarchy to them: Morals must shape your Ethics and your Morals & Ethics shape you values. If you do it in any other order or if you put Ethics first, your sense of right & wrong become out of whack.

God Bless & may The Lord grant us all wisdom and understanding.
Amen.

I’m not saying that you shouldn’t have children because of your gang-member brother’s “stupid and evil actions,” I’m saying you shouldn’t have children because more likely than not your children will grow up to be just like your brothers, and then they will be tortured forever and ever with no respite. Wouldn’t you spare them that risk?

Further, I do believe in God. And, no, I think it is OK to have children even though the world is full of evil, because we don’t have good enough evidence to suppose that God cannot bring about greater good from those evils. Or, there isn’t enough evidence to prove that some or any evil is absolutely gratuitous.

However, eternal hell is clearly a gratuitous evil. Some say it is not gratuitous because it is a necessary consequence of the combination of free will and the indestructibility of rational souls. I find the arguments for these positions totally unconvincing. Hell is “too evil to bring children into it.” Yes, we don’t know if our children will end up in hell, but why expose them to the possibility? That is unbelievably irresponsible and demented! If eternal hell is real, then as a matter of upright morality, everyone should stop having children. It would seem to be the only right thing to do.

Fortunately though, I strongly suspect that there is no eternal hell. Therefore, having children is a wonderful thing!

 

[DCNBILL]

Yes I agree, there must be a right answer. However, that doesn’t do anything to counter my point that will live in a world of mass confusion. If the punishment for getting the “wrong answer” is eternal hell, and most people end up getting “the wrong answer” then it is wrong to have children, because more likely than not they will be among the subset of those who get the wrong answer. This is a general maxim. Don’t just think about the babies being born within an RC family, think about the majority of humanity born with the “wrong answer.”

I’m not saying that you shouldn’t have children because of your gang-member brother’s “stupid and evil actions,” I’m saying you shouldn’t have children because more likely than not your children will grow up to be just like your brothers, and then they will be tortured forever and ever with no respite. Wouldn’t you spare them that risk?

Further, I do believe in God. And, no, I think it is OK to have children even though the world is full of evil, because we don’t have good enough evidence to suppose that God cannot bring about greater good from those evils. Or, there isn’t enough evidence to prove that some or any evil is absolutely gratuitous.

However, eternal hell is clearly a gratuitous evil. Some say it is not gratuitous because it is a necessary consequence of the combination of free will and the indestructibility of rational souls. I find the arguments for these positions totally unconvincing. Hell is “too evil to bring children into it.” Yes, we don’t know if our children will end up in hell, but why expose them to the possibility? That is unbelievably irresponsible and demented! If eternal hell is real, then as a matter of upright morality, everyone should stop having children. It would seem to be the only right thing to do.

Fortunately though, I strongly suspect that there is no eternal hell. Therefore, having children is a wonderful thing!

I have an idea for you, look around.

Here in the real world, is there any kind of attention to this issue with any one that you know?

The only ones that should even be bothered by your question are Christians, right.

Any informed Christian can tell you that their final eternal destination is dependent on the choices that they make in life.

One of the choices that they make in life is, if they marry, to be open to the receiving of children from God. Yes children are gifts from God. To do otherwise, contraception, abortions, are sins and wrong choices.

So, in the mind of the Christian, having children it is not only the right thing to do as a married Christian, it would be a sin to do otherwise.

So if your argument is aimed at changing our minds about children you are aiming at the wrong targets.

 

[meltzerboy]

Since the “Fear of Hell” thread will likely be closed soon, and seems to be an interminable debate, I thought I would bring up this aspect of the problem for examination as well. My argument is as follows:

1. To have a child causes a human life to exist.
2. Existence is the necessary condition upon which all outcomes are contingent.
3. An eternity in hell is the worst possible outcome of a human life.
4. There is at least a non-zero chance that any human being will spend eternity in hell.
5. Even partially causing a human life to attain the worst possible outcome is evil.

Therefore

1. 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).

Consider this illustration:

What if there were a lottery such that if one were to win the lottery, they would gain infinite money and happiness? To play the lottery, one must buy a ticket. One may buy as many tickets as one wants to increase one’s chances of winning the lottery, and it doesn’t cost any more to buy a thousand tickets than one ticket. The cost of even one ticket is that, if one loses the lottery, one will owe an infinite amount of money to the lottery commission and experience unending misery.

The lottery commission and previous known winners have said that few people win this lottery. No matter how many tickets one buys, if one does not have the right combination of tickets, one will lose the lottery.

Would you sign up your children for this game, knowing that they could very well be among the “losers” and thus experience unending debt and misery? Is it reasonable to play this game? Is it good to enter a child in this lottery?

In my illustration, the “tickets” are “good works” and “faith.” The “winners” go to heaven. The “losers” go to hell. We are all “playing the lottery” simply by being alive. Having a child “signs him or her up for the lottery.”

Given our knowledge of the situation, I submit that consciously choosing to have children and thus subjecting them to this situation is evil.

Before we get started, I am ready to concede that having sex without the knowledge of whether or not a child will be produced is less evil than purposely “trying to conceive.” Although, I would argue that choosing to have sex in the first place is evil in and of itself since it is known to cause children, and having children is evil per the argument offered above.

Please explain why I’m wrong.

It may be you are wrong because there is a non-zero chance of virtually everything: a non-zero chance that the child you have will suffer physically, emotionally, and spiritually, perhaps a lot, in this life; a non-zero chance they will cause others to suffer in this life and lead others astray spiritually; a non-zero chance they will come to believe in a religion that teaches them the wrong ideas about life, as well as about heaven and hell, or come not to believe in any religion or in G-d; a non-zero chance your own religion which you teach your child is incomplete or wrong about certain things, including hell; a non-zero chance…I think you get the idea.

The main point, however, is that to be alive involves taking risks, some of them trivial risks and others high risks. Life involves choices and decisions which we make, some of them good while others bad; some of them right, others wrong. But not to be alive at all means not to have the opportunity to make any choices, decisions, or take any risks. The choices and decisions are ours to make but only if we are alive.

 

[tonyrey]

OK we’re talking past each other I think. The risk is that our children will “choose hell.” If it “depends entirely” on them, and they have meaningful choices, then they’re at risk for all we know.

There is no risk in choosing something you really want. Even though hell has its disadvantages it is a choice not a trap and has its compensations that make it worthwhile for those who prefer to live for themselves even though permanent isolation and frustration are serious drawbacks. We can’t have everything we want whatever we choose.

Your question is unreasonable because it is impossible to give us a choice to exist before we exist.

Yes, we’re talking past each other. This particular thread isn’t about our choices, but the risk we put on our children by forcing them to exist. We don’t have to have children right? No one is compelled to have sex (except rape victims God forbid). We do have a choice about whether or not we will create children to bring into a situation where they might choose eternal torment.

They might and probably will choose eternal happiness of which you would deprive them merely because of your pessimism…

Yes, I agree that our beliefs have no effect on objective reality. However, what I’m saying, is that many RC beliefs cannot correspond to reality because they are logical impossibilities. If I say to you, “behold the round square” I can assure you that whatever object I present to you is most certainly not a round square even if you think you believe it is! Further, I don’t think anyone is able to hold a belief like that in the first place. Wanting to believe something and actually believing it are two different things.

That objection can be raised to the view that hell doesn’t exist in spite of all the evidence that** people create their own hell here in this world.
**

Following Socrates, I believe that doubt proceeds from wisdom like smoke from a fire. He who has no doubt whatsoever is the most blind, in my opinion. I am not absolutely convinced of anything at all, I don’t think. I submit that I do not have Christian values so much as “Jewish” values. People say western civilization is founded upon Judeo-Christian values. I am a believer in “Judeo” values I suppose.

You believe in justice - which doesn’t exist if those who have caused great suffering receive** no punishment** and their victims** no compensation**.

The abuse of free will is a sufficient justification for hell…

The problem with this response (I believe William Lane Craig has suggested this as well) is that there is no one that we are “depriving” of life. These future descendants are merely possible, and it doesn’t make sense to say that they can be “deprived” since they don’t exist at all!

According to that argument you wouldn’t be deprived of life if your parents hadn’t decided to have a child. You imply that those who will exist in the future are insignificant and cannot be affected by our choices simply because they haven’t been born! It amounts to saying “To hell with those who might or might not exist! I’m only concerned with this generation.” Do you really believe that?

Secondarily, “we can’t be absolutely sure of anything” is not a good defense against the charge of reckless endangerment! By having children, one is making it so that another human being is risking eternal, infinite loss. We have good reason to believe, given the truth of Roman Catholicism, that any given child will more likely than not “choose hell.” Further, “hell” is such a fearsome and horrific outcome, that even the slightest expose to that liability would be unconscionable.

Where is it claimed that hell is more likely than heaven?

Imagine if you were standing outside of a hospital with your kids, and the doctor standing outside said “Welcome to my hospital. Just so you know, a horrific infectious disease is spreading throughout the hospital. It seems like more than half of the people who walk into this hospital get the disease. The disease causes you to slowly bleed to death while suffocating and experiencing extreme agony continuously until death. Most of the people scream and beg for death. It usually takes about 5 years to die, and there is no cure whatsoever. You can avoid the disease if you wash your hands very carefully, wear this gas mask, and don’t touch anything. If you can stay in this hospital for 10 years, I’ll give you a million dollars and let you go.” I submit that you would be insane and/or evil to go into this hospital, much less push your kids in the door!

Your analogy completely overlooks the Christian belief that God is an infinitely loving Father who created everyone for happiness and cannot be blamed if some choose to reject Him because they prefer to live for themselves. There is plenty of evidence of that mentality in this life and no reason why it should be different in the next.

Later, when you’ve been arrested and the judge is going to take your children away from you on the charge of reckless endangerment, your lawyer’s defense of “well judge, we couldn’t be sure whether or not the children would get the disease, and besides that, it is totally dependent upon their choice anyway. If they were to get the illness, it would be their own fault, and they would deserve it” would be laughed out of the court and you would be thrown in prison.

Evil is not a disease but a decision. Nor is it a fatal infection over which we have no control. Nor is the world an immense hospital but a home where we choose who to love. The only prison that exists is the one we make for ourselves with our pride… The rest exists in your imagination which revolts against the harsh reality of evil.

 

[oldcelt]

Yes we ran into this before. I’m going to try to be as explicit as I can.

God is, always has been, and always will be at least partially responsible for all of your choices because he holds you in existence at all times. Also, his will is both immutable and totally sovereign. Your will and God’s will must be consonant or “synergistic” or else God is not truly omnipotent.

Whether you describe God’s knowledge as existing in the “eternal now” matters not. The point is that God has infallible knowledge of every outcome since he is experiencing all of time “now.”

I will address your analogy later. I am happy to use it, but have another long day of work.

Thanks for your effort to help me, I appreciate it.

The Christian God’s responsibility lies in the creative act, coupled with infallible foreknowledge and immutable preordination of all future events. It’s all in the Catholic Encyclopedia under predestination. A deity cannot create with all the powers ascribed to the Christian God and escape responsibility. It is a logical impossibility.
That is why they list it as one of the many “mysteries.”

John

 

[tonyrey]

The Christian God’s responsibility lies in the creative act, coupled with infallible foreknowledge and immutable preordination of all future events. It’s all in the Catholic Encyclopedia under predestination. A deity cannot create with all the powers ascribed to the Christian God and escape responsibility. It is a logical impossibility.
That is why they list it as one of the many “mysteries.”

John

God is certainly responsible for your power to reject His love - and blame Him for your freedom…

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I have an idea for you, look around.

Here in the real world, is there any kind of attention to this issue with any one that you know?

The only ones that should even be bothered by your question are Christians, right.

Any informed Christian can tell you that their final eternal destination is dependent on the choices that they make in life.

One of the choices that they make in life is, if they marry, to be open to the receiving of children from God. Yes children are gifts from God. To do otherwise, contraception, abortions, are sins and wrong choices.

So, in the mind of the Christian, having children it is not only the right thing to do as a married Christian, it would be a sin to do otherwise.

So if your argument is aimed at changing our minds about children you are aiming at the wrong targets.

I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind about children. I’m trying to sow doubt about whether or not there is a thing such as eternal hell.

Yes sir you are right, no one seems to worry about this problem “in the real world.” I believe this is because no one actually believes in the reality of eternal hell, or doesn’t consider their own potential complicity in hell (by having children), or doesn’t believe that their children will go to hell. I submit that if people actually believed in the potential of eternal hell for their own family members, especially the ones they chose to create in the first place, they would live in constant mourning, despair, and fear. How anyone can worship the architect of hell boggles my mind.

Fortunately, I do not believe the true God is the architect and custodian of everlasting hell, so no problem!

 

[Aloysium]

. . . It is a logical impossibility. That is why they list it as one of the many “mysteries.” . . .

Mystery = awesome Reality

Let’s go through this again.
A little good will and it can all be clear.

Here we are now - perpetual change from potency into actuality.
Here and now, we can do this or that, and once done, it’s done.
The contents of the moment which defines our human soul, have been transformed by our acts.
We have grown further or closer to Christ.

I exist; there is absolutely no reality in which I do not.
All hypotheticals in this regard are nonsense.

The repercussions of what we do ripple through time.
These cannot be undone, but they can be forgiven.
The price was paid at the foundation of the earth, revealed temporally in the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Changing, the moment remains fresh and new, centred as it is in the eternal Moment.
God is within each moment as its Source.
He is one, encompassing all moments, beyond time.

I sit within the eternal Now at my birth,
at this particular instant within history, and
at my death bed.
I cannot have but existed, since I do.
My actions, in addition to God’s graces have led me here.
My choices, my responsibility.
Mercy Lord.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

There is no risk in choosing something you really want. Even though hell has its disadvantages it is a choice not a trap and has its compensations that make it worthwhile for those who prefer to live for themselves even though permanent isolation and frustration are serious drawbacks. We can’t have everything we want whatever we choose.

So what is heaven then? Do those in heaven not have everything they want? Why not?

They might and probably will choose eternal happiness of which you would deprive them merely because of your pessimism…

I don’t think it is reasonable to say they “probably will choose eternal happiness.” As I have mentioned many times previously on this and the other thread, there is a unified chorus of saints, popes, councils, mystics, doctors, visionaries, miracle-workers, and Jesus himself who all insist that the majority of human beings will “choose hell.” Anyone’s children are more likely than not to be part of the majority, that is a necessary consequence of the definition of “majority.”

Again, one cannot be properly considered to have been deprived if one does not exist.

That objection can be raised to the view that hell doesn’t exist in spite of all the evidence that** people create their own hell here in this world.
**
You believe in justice - which doesn’t exist if those who have caused great suffering receive** no punishment** and their victims** no compensation**.

Again, I believe that God will punish and reward at the final judgment. I just don’t believe that eternal hell could ever be a just punishment. It isn’t “either eternal hell” or “no punishment or reward at all.”

According to that argument you wouldn’t be deprived of life if your parents hadn’t decided to have a child. You imply that those who will exist in the future are insignificant and cannot be affected by our choices simply because they haven’t been born! It amounts to saying “To hell with those who might or might not exist! I’m only concerned with this generation.” Do you really believe that?

Yes, this follows and I believe it (to a certain extent). If I had never been born, then there wouldn’t be a “me” to regret that I never existed. However, this does not imply that “those who will exist in the future” are not significant. What I’m saying is that those who never have and never will exist are insignificant. Do you understand the distinction? Yes, I am unconcerned with those who will never exist, but I am very concerned for those who would exist. In fact, I’m so concerned for them that I think we shouldn’t bring them into existence if there is a possibility that they may end up in eternal suffering.

Where is it claimed that hell is more likely than heaven?

There isn’t space to fully communicate the deep and dark pessimism of the RC and other Christian saints and heroes regarding this subject. Just do a cursory reading of any of them!

Your analogy completely overlooks the Christian belief that God is an infinitely loving Father who created everyone for happiness and cannot be blamed if some choose to reject Him because they prefer to live for themselves. There is plenty of evidence of that mentality in this life and no reason why it should be different in the next.

Evil is not a disease but a decision. Nor is it a fatal infection over which we have no control. Nor is the world an immense hospital but a home where we choose who to love. The only prison that exists is the one we make for ourselves with our pride… The rest exists in your imagination which revolts against the harsh reality of evil.

Yes you’re right, there is no adequate analogy of which I’m aware. Again, if you would like to supply a better one please do. I don’t have time right now to respond to this fully, but the “choice” of whether or not one gets the disease is located in the gas mask, hand washing, and avoidance of touch. I do believe this is analogous. More later.