If Hell exists, Having Children Is Evil

[tonyrey]

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.

I specified “what we want”, not “what we want in heaven”.

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.”

Please cite the words of Jesus who is the supreme authority on the question of hell.

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

Your view is unrealistic because it is restricted to the present generation instead of encompassing the entire human race from start to finish.

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.

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.

You have no reason to believe punishment and reward are inflicted by God rather than self-inflicted. Do you reject the doctrine of Karma?

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.

In that case your argument collapses.** You agree that those who will exist should not be penalised for the sins of their ancestors** - which is what will happen if their ancestors are deprived of the opportunity to exist. It is absurd to single out individuals as if their destinies are not intertwined. “No man is an island.”

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!

Let us have just one quotation from the Compendium of the Catechism written by Pope Benedict which is **the official exposition **of the teachings of the Catholic Church:
vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html#The%20Profession%20of%20Faith

1. In what does hell consist?

1033-1035
1056-1057

Hell consists in the eternal damnation of those who die in mortal sin through their own free choice. The principal suffering of hell is eternal separation from God in whom alone we can have the life and happiness for which we were created and for which we long. Christ proclaimed this reality with the words, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire” (Matthew 25:41).

The references are to the full Catechism:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

God, while desiring “all to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9), nevertheless has created the human person to be free and responsible; and he respects our decisions. Therefore, it is the human person who freely excludes himself from communion with God if at the moment of death he persists in mortal sin and refuses the merciful love of God.

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.

The choice is located in our mind unless you reject free will and responsibility for our behaviour.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I specified “what we want”, not “what we want in heaven”.
Please cite the words of Jesus who is the supreme authority on the question of hell.

13 Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. 14 How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.

• Jesus. Matthew 7:13-14. Emphasis is mine.

Your view is unrealistic because it is restricted to the present generation instead of encompassing the entire human race from start to finish.

What? Why? I don’t understand.

You have no reason to believe punishment and reward are inflicted by God rather than self-inflicted. Do you reject the doctrine of Karma?

Yes. I don’t believe in “karma.” I have reason to believe that God does mete out punishment and reward. Some people “get away with” great evil, and others do great good that is unrecognized and unrewarded. See: Kant’s moral argument for the existence of God.

In that case your argument collapses.** You agree that those who will exist should not be penalised for the sins of their ancestors** - which is what will happen if their ancestors are deprived of the opportunity to exist. It is absurd to single out individuals as if their destinies are not intertwined. “No man is an island.”

If their ancestors never exist, then they cannot be “those who will exist.” Yes, “no man is an island” I agree. However, no one can be deprived of existence, because any kind of deprivation pre-supposes and is contingent upon existence. Existence is prior to deprivation.

I agree with you that we have moral duties to “humankind” as a whole, even though humankind as a whole have not yet come into existence or have already died. I am against pollution, abuse of the environment, and economic degradation for this reason (among others). However, we have no such specific duties to any particular non-existent persons. The reason that having children while holding a belief in eternal hell is wrong is precisely because the children actually do exist when you have them. If they never exist in the first place, then they can’t be wronged. Their potential descendants are in the same quandary in which all of us find ourselves with respect to this issue.

Your quote by Pope Benedict is quite mellow, but he is only one opinion among many who would dissent from his position. Read Augustine. Read Aquinas. They both insist that the nature of hell is punishment in a juridical sense. I don’t believe that you are unfamiliar with the long and grim tradition of RC authorities who insist that most people go to hell. Hans Urs von Balthasar is among a very recent, very small minority. It has only been in recent times when the RCC has become ashamed of her doctrine of hell that she has backed off considerably.

The choice is located in our mind unless you reject free will and responsibility for our behaviour.

The children have a choice about whether they will wear the gas mask, wash their hands, and avoid touching anything. The RCC teaches that mortal sin (the disease) is fatal and incurable except by a miracle (via the sacraments or otherwise). The thing that is missing is that the children are actually born with the disease and must be cleansed in the first place.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Look, we can stop. This seems to be going nowhere. I read back over this thread many times in an attempt to understand why people said I have been “soundly defeated” or that I “refuse to listen.” I honestly can’t figure it out.

I don’t believe that anyone has shown that is is morally right to have children if one believes that they may choose hell one day (without making intolerable sacrifices).

One person admitted that hell is “good” and that a world where every single person goes to hell is still a “good” world. This seems obviously wrong to me, but I suppose it is a kind of solution. If one accepts that hell is a “good” and that it would be “good” if one’s children choose hell, then I suppose you could say it is morally right to have children. It does seem like the word “good” has no meaning distinguishable from “evil” in that case though.

You seem to be arguing that it is morally right to have children because 1) it is unlikely they will “choose hell” and 2) even if they do, they’ll like it or want it to some extent. I think that the tradition of the RCC disagrees with 1, and that 2 is similarly unfounded. Maybe RC believers are “free” to believe these things, I don’t know.

Others have offered the circular argument that “God says it’s good, so it is.” This assumes that eternal hell is a legitimate part of the revelation of the real God. For this response to work, the proponent must show that to be the case.

I think I’ve accomplished what I want to here, and hopefully this will make interesting reading for those with a similar issue. I will continue to watch this thread, but in order to respond I will need someone to make a positive case that it is morally right to have children given a belief in eternal hell (without undermining RCC dogma/doctrine, or obliterating the meaning of important words like good, love, justice, truth, or God).

I do believe my objection stands otherwise, and I honestly don’t understand how I have been successfully refuted. I am racking my brains and squinting but I don’t see it.

The only thing I can think of is that I didn’t respond to someone’s assertion that human souls can’t be annihilated because it would involve “God contradicting himself” or something. I didn’t respond because that defense makes no sense to me at all. Yes, God can’t contradict himself I suppose, but why would the annihilation of a soul involve contradiction? If it isn’t a contradiction for God to create a soul with the knowledge that the soul will one day be eternally punished in hell (while allegedly loving that soul and desiring the salvation of that soul) then it can’t be a contradiction to wipe the soul out from existence.

Also, I mentioned that hell is a “pagan” concept and may have offended a Hindu contributor to this thread. I wasn’t talking about Hinduism, don’t consider those beliefs to be “pagan” and meant no offense. I meant to allude to Greco-Roman and Zoroastrian beliefs, which I consider to be the true sources of the doctrine of eternal hell.

 

[tonyrey]

13 Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction, and those who enter through it are many. 14 How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few.

• Jesus. Matthew 7:13-14. Emphasis is mine.

God doesn’t leave us to find it on our own:

25When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, “Then who can be saved?” 26And looking at them Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”…

What? Why? I don’t understand.

From God’s point of view everyone exists in the eternal present and no particular generation has priority whereas you would sacrifice many for the sake of a few.

You have no reason to believe punishment and reward are inflicted by God rather than self-inflicted. Do you reject the doctrine of Karma?

Yes. I don’t believe in “karma.” I have reason to believe that God does mete out punishment and reward. Some people “get away with” great evil, and others do great good that is unrecognized and unrewarded. See: Kant’s moral argument for the existence of God.

They get away with evil in this life but in the next they are confronted with all the suffering they have caused and compelled to realise how callous and vicious they have been. The truth is enough to make them suffer and isolate them from everyone else… Your rejection of Karma implies vices don’t incur their own punishment and virtues their own reward. Yet the more people have the more they want and the more they want the less likely they are to be satisfied. That vicious circle inevitably leads to misery and frustration. The onus is on you to prove that evil and selfishness lead to fulfilment and happiness whereas all the evidence points to it as being a fool’s paradise!

You agree that those who will exist should not be penalised for the sins of their ancestors - which is what will happen if their ancestors are deprived of the opportunity to exist. It is absurd to single out individuals as if their destinies are not intertwined. “No man is an island.”

If their ancestors never exist, then they cannot be “those who will exist.” Yes, “no man is an island” I agree. However, no one can be deprived of existence, because any kind of deprivation pre-supposes and is contingent upon existence. Existence is prior to deprivation.

Yet you are arguing that God need not have created certain individuals! The existence of every creature is contingent and only God’s existence is prior to deprivation. We too can decide whether to bring children into the world even though only God knows whether they will choose evil. We can change our minds and decide not to have children. So in effect we are preventing them from being born.

I agree with you that we have moral duties to “humankind” as a whole, even though humankind as a whole have not yet come into existence or have already died. I am against pollution, abuse of the environment, and economic degradation for this reason (among others). However, we have no such specific duties to any particular non-existent persons. The reason that having children while holding a belief in eternal hell is wrong is precisely because the children actually do exist when you have them. If they never exist in the first place, then they can’t be wronged. Their potential descendants are in the same quandary in which all of us find ourselves with respect to this issue.

Our potential descendants cannot be wronged but if everyone decided not to have children the human race would become extinct. It amounts to a death wish for humanity which implies that life is not worth living for which we would all be directly responsible if we decided not to have children simply because we are too lazy or selfish to care for them. You can’t separate the wood from the trees!

Your quote by Pope Benedict is quite mellow, but he is only one opinion among many who would dissent from his position. Read Augustine. Read Aquinas. They both insist that the nature of hell is punishment in a juridical sense. I don’t believe that you are unfamiliar with the long and grim tradition of RC authorities who insist that most people go to hell. Hans Urs von Balthasar is among a very recent, very small minority. It has only been in recent times when the RCC has become ashamed of her doctrine of hell that she has backed off considerably.

You have yet to cite a traditional doctrine of the Church which states that most people go to hell. Not one of the persons you refer to has claimed to be infallible.

.
The children have a choice about whether they will wear the gas mask, wash their hands, and avoid touching anything. The RCC teaches that mortal sin (the disease) is fatal and incurable except by a miracle (via the sacraments or otherwise). The thing that is missing is that the children are actually born with the disease and must be cleansed in the first place.

On the contrary:

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence".

It is absurd to believe we have not been adversely affected by the blood-stained history of our ancestors. In large cities distrust and insecurity dominate people’s lives. Is that a natural state of affairs?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

From God’s point of view everyone exists in the eternal present and no particular generation has priority whereas you would sacrifice many for the sake of a few.

Ok around again we go. One cannot be properly considered to have been sacrificed if one does not exist in the first place. That seems wrong-headed to me. I suppose one could say that one sacrifices the potential of something that could exist, but we don’t normally consider this to be evil in the way that, say, allowing people to torture themselves for eternity would be.

Consider, if a woman tells you “I sacrificed children for my career,” I submit that the words themselves mean something quite shocking and abhorrent! What she most likely means though, is that she gave up the chance to have children in order to accomplish some career goals.

Similarly, I assert here that we should give up the chance to have children, because having them makes us morally responsible for their outcome to some degree, and it is possible that the outcome could be endless torment for all of eternity. This isn’t evil, or else the vast majority of RC saints are evil because they chose to give up the chance to have children in order to spread their message of gloom and fear throughout the world.

The saints gave up the chance to have children because they believed it was necessary to accomplish a greater good. I’m saying here that the avoidance of hell is a greater good than existence, and that if we believe in hell and want to do what is right, we should make absolutely certain that our children avoid hell. The only way to do this is to not have them at all!

They get away with evil in this life…The onus is on you to prove that evil and selfishness lead to fulfilment and happiness whereas all the evidence points to it as being a fool’s paradise!

I understand karma to be a cosmic force that “evens out” the scales of justice via fortunate or unfortunate events. For instance, a powerful and rich CEO who abuses people and robs the poor gets a particularly nasty cancer and dies a slow, painful, and humiliating death while completely draining his bank account. I do not believe in this “cosmic force.” And, if you do believe in it, then why is heaven or hell necessary at all? If the universe balances itself out via “karma,” then why is an after-life punishment or reward needed at all? If you say the condition of the afterlife is part of “karma,” then we don’t seem to have a reason to believe that it will be any more fair or reasonable than this life.

Yet you are arguing that God need not have created certain individuals! The existence of every creature is contingent…You can’t separate the wood from the trees!

Yes, essentially, the possibility of hell for our children makes their lives not worth living (form our perspective) since the risk of eternal suffering blots out any other possible good. Only a deep selfishness would affirm that we should recklessly and carelessly create children while also believing that they may end up tormented endlessly some day. Yes, it follows that I think total extinction is the moral choice for us to make. Good thing eternal hell isn’t real!

You have yet to cite a traditional doctrine of the Church which states that most people go to hell. Not one of the persons you refer to has claimed to be infallible.

Doesn’t Jesus qualify as infallible to you? It would seem to be a straightforward reading of the text that most people are not saved. Indeed, most saints seem to share this opinion. Are you so willing to toss all those opinions? (I am, but then again, I am no longer a RC believer).

It is absurd to believe we have not been adversely affected by the blood-stained history of our ancestors. In large cities distrust and insecurity dominate people’s lives. Is that a natural state of affairs?

To me it seems more absurd to think that God is the architect and custodian of that history by withholding sanctifying grace from all of us from the moment of our conceptions, thus exposing us to demonic influence and a tendency to sin.

Perhaps men are unhappy because they are imperfect, foolish, and make mistakes? Why do they have to be “evil to the core” which can only be cured by a miracle as the doctrine of original sin suggests? Augustine specifically argues that we are liable for eternal hell just for having been born. Pelagius called him the “damn-er of infants.” Isn’t is possible that the distrust and insecurity you mention is a result of our fear of death and unwillingness to live a good life? Maybe we don’t live a good life because we don’t know how? Maybe education in virtue is a solution? Aren’t there many places where human beings live harmoniously? Are those places exclusively Roman Catholic majority countries where the sacraments are readily available? Wouldn’t places where everyone is in a state of “original sin” be virtual hell-holes of misery and suffering?

Another conflict we seem to have is that people like to quote the most modern catechism and ignore older and more traditional church teachers. I will admit that the modern catechism has been “sanitized” in some aspects and appears much more friendly, but if one maintains that the RCC has the “fullness of truth” and that truth is immutable, then this friendliness is only superficial.

 

[DCNBILL]

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!

Oh ok, but God did say that there is a hell.

Matthew 5:29; If thy right eye is the occasion of thy falling into sin, pluck it out and cast it away from thee; better to lose one part of thy body than to have the whole cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand is an occasion of falling, cut it off and cast it away from thee; better to lose one of thy limbs than to have thy whole body cast into hell.

Matthew 8:12 while that kingdom’s own sons are cast into the darkness without, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth

Matthew 10:28; And there is no need to fear those who kill the body, but have no means of killing the soul; fear him more, who has the power to ruin body and soul in hell.

Matthew 13:41; the Son of Man will give charge to his angels, and they will gather up all that gives offence in his kingdom, all those who do wickedly in it, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping, and gnashing of teeth.

and also Matthew 25:41 and 46; 2 if you want to look those up as well.

 

[Memaw]

Does baptism “undo” free will? Much breath has been wasted by apologists attempting to justify hell by appealing to free will right? If one’s children are baptized, they may still “choose hell” and thus one is still exposing one’s children to the “more likely than not” risk of eternal torment. Further, it is said that baptized people will endure far worse torments in hell. On this view, it is even more evil to have children and then get them baptized since you will be exposing them to a risk of even worse eternal torment (if such a thing is even possible).

When one thinks they know more than God how to relate with HIS children then one is walking in dark territory. I’d rather walk in the LIGHT. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Conradine]

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

It’s quite close to my opinion.

 

[tonyrey]

One cannot be properly considered to have been sacrificed if one does not exist in the first place. That seems wrong-headed to me. I suppose one could say that one sacrifices the potential of something that could exist, but we don’t normally consider this to be evil in the way that, say, allowing people to torture themselves for eternity would be.

Consider, if a woman tells you “I sacrificed children for my career,” I submit that the words themselves mean something quite shocking and abhorrent! What she most likely means though, is that she gave up the chance to have children in order to accomplish some career goals.

If we allow others to torture themselves unnecessarily and even die in their attempt to achieve their paramount ambition do you classify that as evil? Is suffering the worst of all evils?

Similarly, I assert here that we should give up the chance to have children, because having them makes us morally responsible for their outcome to some degree, and it is possible that the outcome could be endless torment for all of eternity. This isn’t evil, or else the vast majority of RC saints are evil because they chose to give up the chance to have children in order to spread their message of gloom and fear throughout the world.

The saints gave up the chance to have children because they believed it was necessary to accomplish a greater good. I’m saying here that the avoidance of hell is a greater good than existence, and that if we believe in hell and want to do what is right, we should make absolutely certain that our children avoid hell. The only way to do this is to not have them at all!

In other words you believe suffering is the worst of all evils? And avoiding mental distress is more important than being free to choose how to live?

I understand karma to be a cosmic force that “evens out” the scales of justice via fortunate or unfortunate events. For instance, a powerful and rich CEO who abuses people and robs the poor gets a particularly nasty cancer and dies a slow, painful, and humiliating death while completely draining his bank account. I do not believe in this “cosmic force.” And, if you do believe in it, then why is heaven or hell necessary at all? If the universe balances itself out via “karma,” then why is an after-life punishment or reward needed at all? If you say the condition of the afterlife is part of “karma,” then we don’t seem to have a reason to believe that it will be any more fair or reasonable than this life.

I did not state that karma applies only to this life, nor is that the usual interpretation of the term.

Karma - (in Hinduism and Buddhism) the sum of a person’s actions in this and previous states of existence, viewed as deciding their fate in future existences. - Google

Yes, essentially, the possibility of hell for our children makes their lives not worth living (form our perspective) since the risk of eternal suffering blots out any other possible good.

Your perspective is not necessarily theirs!

Only a deep selfishness would affirm that we should recklessly and carelessly create children while also believing that they may end up tormented endlessly some day. Yes, it follows that I think total extinction is the moral choice for us to make. Good thing eternal hell isn’t real!

No advantages in hell whatsoever? Being damned is not the price of lunacy!

Doesn’t Jesus qualify as infallible to you? It would seem to be a straightforward reading of the text that most people are not saved. Indeed, most saints seem to share this opinion. Are you so willing to toss all those opinions? (I am, but then again, I am no longer a RC believer).

Which text?

To me it seems more absurd to think that God is the architect and custodian of that history by withholding sanctifying grace from all of us from the moment of our conceptions, thus exposing us to demonic influence and a tendency to sin.

How do you know sanctifying grace is withheld?

Perhaps men are unhappy because they are imperfect, foolish, and make mistakes? Why do they have to be “evil to the core” which can only be cured by a miracle as the doctrine of original sin suggests?

The Catechism refutes that argument.

Augustine specifically argues that we are liable for eternal hell just for having been born.

Please cite his exact words.

Pelagius called him the “damn-er of infants.” Isn’t is possible that the distrust and insecurity you mention is a result of our fear of death and unwillingness to live a good life?

They are not the only causes.

Maybe we don’t live a good life because we don’t know how? Maybe education in virtue is a solution?

Education alone is not enough.

Aren’t there many places where human beings live harmoniously?

With no crime or enmity whatsoever?

Are those places exclusively Roman Catholic majority countries where the sacraments are readily available? Wouldn’t places where everyone is in a state of “original sin” be virtual hell-holes of misery and suffering?

The Catechism refutes that argument.

Another conflict we seem to have is that people like to quote the most modern catechism and ignore older and more traditional church teachers. I will admit that the modern catechism has been “sanitized” in some aspects and appears much more friendly, but if one maintains that the RCC has the “fullness of truth” and that truth is immutable, then this friendliness is only superficial.

There is no conflict whatsoever between the fundamental teaching of the Church from the time of the Apostles to the present day.

 

[oldcelt]

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

Not in my belief.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

If we allow others to torture themselves unnecessarily and even die in their attempt to achieve their paramount ambition do you classify that as evil? Is suffering the worst of all evils?

If they are torturing themselves in order to “achieve their paramount ambition” then the torture isn’t unnecessary is it? Do you mean excessive? Yes, it is wrong to allow another to harm themselves excessively, but practically difficult to determine how much suffering is “excessive.” Eternal suffering, however, is most assuredly excessive don’t you think? “Suffering” is too ambiguous of a concept to be considered “the worst of all evils.” Eternal gratuitous suffering though is most certainly heinously evil, possibly the “worst of all evils.”

In other words you believe suffering is the worst of all evils?..

Hell is much more than “mental distress.” Read the other thread. I linked to many statements showing that the greatest saints, fathers, doctors, and popes believed hell to involve material and spiritual suffering of a truly horrific magnitude.

Your perspective is not necessarily theirs!
No advantages in hell whatsoever? Being damned is not the price of lunacy!

Yes, but their perspective doesn’t matter since they don’t exist and never will (if I choose not to have them). Further, to think life is “worth the risk” of eternal hell is irrational, so it doesn’t matter if a child were to hold that opinion since the opinion would be “wrong.” I’m concerned about whether or not the choice to have children is morally right, not whether the theoretical child may want to exist anyway. Further, yes, I believe that eternal hell was born in the minds of ancient pagan lunatics, not the true God.

Which text?

Matthew 7:13-14.

How do you know sanctifying grace is withheld?

I don’t, but neither is anyone able to confirm that it isn’t. Most people going to hell seems like good evidence, unless God’s grace does very little or nothing at all.

Please cite his exact words.

City of God 21, 12: “Hence there is a condemned mass of the whole human race . . . so that no one would be freed from this just and due punishment except by mercy and undue grace; and so the human race is divided [into two parts] so that in some it may be shown what merciful grace can do, in others, what just vengeance can do. . . . In it [punishment] there are many more than in [mercy] so that in this way there may be shown what is due to all.”

Epistle 190. 3. 12: He said that reprobates are so much more numerous than the saved that “by an incomparable number they are more numerous than those whom He deigned to predestine as sons of the promise to the glory of His kingdom; so that by the very number of those rejected, it might he shown that the number, howsoever large, of the justly damned is of no importance with a just God. . . .” Which implies that God does not will all to be saved: hence Augustine’s explicit denial, several times, of the words of 1 Tim 2:4. Hence too, as we said above, God does not really love anyone: He merely uses a few to show mercy.

More: ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.HTM

They are not the only causes. Education alone is not enough. With no crime or enmity whatsoever?

Yes OK, “original sin” has a kind of explanatory power in the same way that “magic” has explanatory power: it satisfies those with a superficial interest or agenda of misdirection (illusionists/magicians/etc). Similarly, skilled magicians will be able to explain away or account for competing explanations of their deceptions.

However, I believe that our unhappiness comes chiefly from our collective refusal to follow God’s commands given to us after the flood, because we are silly and imperfect beings, and because sin begets more sin. We will not have a totally good society until the messiah comes and all people will recognize the one true God in the “World to Come.”

Original sin implies that babies are guilty and deserve eternal punishment. This is undeniable and flows directly from the doctrine itself. This is so ugly that many Christians have engaged in Olympic level mental gymnastics to ignore or explain away this harsh ugliness, but they fail. Pope Benedict recognized this and called a commission to study it. This group produced a paper. Read that paper. It is a laughably sad attempt to reconcile original sin theory with simple and decent humanity.

There is no conflict whatsoever between the fundamental teaching of the Church from the time of the Apostles to the present day.

You say that, and yet there are undeniable changes in “tone” or “discipline” or “pastoral practice” or whatever throughout the years. Further, the teaching on usury (a matter of morality) has been completely reversed! Indeed, the teachings about “religious freedom” are precisely the opposite of what Trent and Pope Leo XIII recommend. If the RCC is now teaching that hardly anyone goes to hell or that hell could be empty, or that we “have a reasonable hope” that everyone is saved, then it is a clear and certain break with the considered opinion of most of the saints of RC history.

Again, it requires Olympic-level mental gymnastics (my phrase for today) to reconcile the continuity of RC beliefs throughout time. I know because I engaged in these gymnastics to try to convince myself that the RCC is the one true church and everything they teach is absolutely right and true. Praise God I finally exhausted myself and have been able to move on. I’d be willing to give others information if they feel a similar exhaustion.

 

[Ignatius]

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.

The problem is what you arguing against is not what Catholics actually believe. You clearly have grave misunderstandings of what Catholics believe and how it happens. I think it would help clear up your misunderstandings if you would just read through The Catechism.
Then you will be able to effectively argue against what Catholics actually believe.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

The problem is what you arguing against is not what Catholics actually believe. You clearly have grave misunderstandings of what Catholics believe and how it happens. I think it would help clear up your misunderstandings if you would just read through The Catechism.
Then you will be able to effectively argue against what Catholics actually believe.

How can you be certain of “what Catholics believe?” I just quoted St. Augustine. Do you know better than him? Why? Is he wrong? Is a father/saint/doctor of the RCC flatly wrong about something so important? If so, why couldn’t he also be wrong about original sin in total?

Another question: which catechism? Only the new “sanitized” version from 1993? I will agree with you that much of the ugliness has been “swept under the rug” or ignored in the new catechism, since the RCC is hemorrhaging adherents wherever people are prosperous and free. I believe an attempt has been made to make RCC beliefs seem less prima facie unbelievable or sinister in order to retain those who now have the freedom and ability to think for themselves, learn, and walk away.

Eternal torturous hell is one of these such sinister beliefs. Original sin is another. Even so, let’s see what the RCC (in 1993) has to say:

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. "Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”

1034 Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus solemnly proclaims that he “will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,” and that he will pronounce the condemnation: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!”

1035 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.

1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”

Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth."

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:

Father, accept this offering from your whole family.Grant us your peace in this life, save us from final damnation, and count us among those you have chosen.

From this I gather that:

1. Hell is eternal punishment
2. We are “thrown” in, or “ordered” to go there (as a result of our “free choice”)
3. Hell is relentless, endless suffering
4. God doesn’t predestine anyone to hell (except this is a contradiction of the teachings of Aquinas and Augustine).

How have I said anything else? Where is my straw man? That I think the RCC thinks most people go to hell? So does Jesus, apparently. OK, maybe the contemporary RCC knows better than Jesus and pretty much all of the saints, popes, doctors, fathers, mystics, visionaries, and miracle-workers. Everyone is so quick to believe every thing a Marian apparition says right? Mary told the children of Fatima that souls “blow into hell like snowflakes in a blizzard.” Don’t believe it? That’s OK, neither do I. I don’t believe any of this at all actually, thank goodness!

 

[tonyrey]

Not in my belief.

Do you mean your power hasn’t come from God, John? Or you don’t blame Him? Please clarify.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Hell is eternal punishment . . .

Heaven is eternal communion with God,
who brings us into existence
to participate in all the wonders of creation,
caring for one another and
returning to Him the love He has given us.

I’ve heard it said that to be successful, one must dream of failure.
I have seen that quality only in people who are driven;
and, they never seem particularly happy with their journey.
I suppose if nothing else motivates a person, staying out of jail has its place.

My suggestion to you: fuhgeddaboudit! Don’t worry. Focus on the goal, which is doable right here and now when you love your neighbour, participate in the church and PRAY!

 

[tonyrey]

If they are torturing themselves in order to “achieve their paramount ambition” then the torture isn’t unnecessary is it?

In that case hell is justified!

Do you mean excessive? Yes, it is wrong to allow another to harm themselves excessively, but practically difficult to determine how much suffering is “excessive.”
Eternal suffering, however, is most assuredly excessive don’t you think?

It is the result of a very carefully considered decision with full knowledge of the consequences.

Eternal gratuitous suffering though is most certainly heinously evil, possibly the “worst of all evils.”

The worst of all evils is** unnecessary** suffering** deliberately inflicted on innocent** people.

Hell is much more than “mental distress.” Read the other thread. I linked to many statements showing that the greatest saints, fathers, doctors, and popes believed hell to involve material and spiritual suffering of a truly horrific magnitude.

In that case material and spiritual pleasure is of an equally astonishing magnitude if we are to judge by the colossal amount of evil in this world. It is wishful thinking that one greatly exceeds the other - unless one is a hedonist of course…

Yes, but their perspective doesn’t matter since they don’t exist and never will (if I choose not to have them).

That remark could have been made of previous generations. A panoramic view of mankind is far more balanced.

Further, to think life is “worth the risk” of eternal hell is irrational, so it doesn’t matter if a child were to hold that opinion since the opinion would be “wrong.”

There is no reason to believe heaven and hell are unbalanced choices, nor does either choice presuppose an unbalanced mind!

I’m concerned about whether or not the choice to have children is morally right, not whether the theoretical child may want to exist anyway.

A theoretical child has no wants!

Further, yes, I believe that eternal hell was born in the minds of ancient pagan lunatics, not the true God.

Genetic fallacy.

Matthew 7:13-14.

Jesus also said “I am the way and the truth and the life”. We are not left to find the way on our own. He also said “With God all things are possible”. Sceptics underestimate both His power and His love, taking the life and teaching of Jesus for granted as if they are an everyday event - an event which has changed the history of mankind.

How do you know sanctifying grace is withheld?

I don’t, but neither is anyone able to confirm that it isn’t. Most people going to hell seems like good evidence, unless God’s grace does very little or nothing at all.

There is no evidence that most do and every reason to believe the vast majority of human beings are not diabolical.

 

[tonyrey]

PumpkinCookie;12966684City of God 21:

so that in some it may be shown what merciful grace can do, in others, what just vengeance can do. . . . In it [punishment] there are many more than in [mercy] so that in this way there may be shown what is due to all."

St Augustine is far from being the ultimate authority on heaven and hell. His teaching was modified by St Thomas Aquinas whose reasoning was more logical and systematic with the advantage of almost a thousand years of progress in insight and knowledge of the implications of Christ’s teaching:

Does this mean that we must praise everything in St. Augustine’s explanation of grace? Certainly not. And we shall note the improvements made by the Church, through her doctors, in the original Augustinism. Some exaggerations have been abandoned, as, for instance, the condemnation to hell of children dying without baptism. Obscure and ambiguous formulæ have been eliminated. We must say frankly that Augustine’s literary method of emphasizing his thought by exaggerated expressions, issuing in troublesome paradoxes, has often obscured his doctrine, aroused opposition in many minds, or led them into error…

Secondly, such consoling and fundamental truths as God’s desire to save all men, and the redeeming death of Christ which was really offered and accepted for all peoples and all individuals — these truths, which Augustine never denied, but which he left too much in the background and as it were hidden under the terrible formulas of the doctrine of predestination, have been placed in the full light, have been developed, and applied to infidel nations, and have at last entered into the ordinary teaching of theology…

Yes OK, “original sin” has a kind of explanatory power in the same way that “magic” has explanatory power: it satisfies those with a superficial interest or agenda of misdirection (illusionists/magicians/etc). Similarly, skilled magicians will be able to explain away or account for competing explanations of their deceptions.

However, I believe that our unhappiness comes chiefly from our collective refusal to follow God’s commands given to us after the flood, because we are silly and imperfect beings, and because sin begets more sin. We will not have a totally good society until the messiah comes and all people will recognize the one true God in the “World to Come.”

Original sin implies that babies are guilty and deserve eternal punishment. This is undeniable and flows directly from the doctrine itself. This is so ugly that many Christians have engaged in Olympic level mental gymnastics to ignore or explain away this harsh ugliness, but they fail. Pope Benedict recognized this and called a commission to study it. This group produced a paper. Read that paper. It is a laughably sad attempt to reconcile original sin theory with simple and decent humanity.

There is no disagreement between the Pope and the Catechism:

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.

You say that, and yet there are undeniable changes in “tone” or “discipline” or “pastoral practice” or whatever throughout the years. Further, the teaching on usury (a matter of morality) has been completely reversed! Indeed, the teachings about “religious freedom” are precisely the opposite of what Trent and Pope Leo XIII recommend. If the RCC is now teaching that hardly anyone goes to hell or that hell could be empty, or that we “have a reasonable hope” that everyone is saved, then it is a clear and certain break with the considered opinion of most of the saints of RC history.
Again, it requires Olympic-level mental gymnastics (my phrase for today) to reconcile the continuity of RC beliefs throughout time. I know because I engaged in these gymnastics to try to convince myself that the RCC is the one true church and everything they teach is absolutely right and true.

No one considers the saints to be infallible nor is the truth determined the majority. The development of Catholic doctrine is evidence that it is not static and fossilised but takes into account discoveries in theology, philosophy, psychology and sociology. The teaching of Jesus and the social teaching of the Church are the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the principles of liberty, equality and particularly fraternity.

 

[tonyrey]

How can you be certain of “what Catholics believe?” I just quoted St. Augustine. Do you know better than him? Why? Is he wrong? Is a father/saint/doctor of the RCC flatly wrong about something so important? If so, why couldn’t he also be wrong about original sin in total?

Another question: which catechism? Only the new “sanitized” version from 1993? I will agree with you that much of the ugliness has been “swept under the rug” or ignored in the new catechism, since the RCC is hemorrhaging adherents wherever people are prosperous and free. I believe an attempt has been made to make RCC beliefs seem less prima facie unbelievable or sinister in order to retain those who now have the freedom and ability to think for themselves, learn, and walk away.

Eternal torturous hell is one of these such sinister beliefs. Original sin is another. Even so, let’s see what the RCC (in 1993) has to say:

From this I gather that:

1. Hell is eternal punishment
2. We are “thrown” in, or “ordered” to go there (as a result of our “free choice”)
3. Hell is relentless, endless suffering
4. God doesn’t predestine anyone to hell (except this is a contradiction of the teachings of Aquinas and Augustine).

How have I said anything else? Where is my straw man? That I think the RCC thinks most people go to hell? So does Jesus, apparently. OK, maybe the contemporary RCC knows better than Jesus and pretty much all of the saints, popes, doctors, fathers, mystics, visionaries, and miracle-workers. Everyone is so quick to believe every thing a Marian apparition says right? Mary told the children of Fatima that souls “blow into hell like snowflakes in a blizzard.” Don’t believe it? That’s OK, neither do I. I don’t believe any of this at all actually, thank goodness!

Aquinas certainly didn’t teach that anyone is predestined for hell. What is better: to maximise or minimise the danger of becoming evil? The saints may well have exaggerated the consequences of being proud, selfish, lazy, greedy, envious, lustful, impatient, callous, intolerant, cynical, hypocritical and self-righteous but it is better to err on the side of caution rather than carelessness. It is very easy to slide slowly by degrees down the slippery slope to a hell of one’s own making. The dictum “Corruptio optima pessima” is borne out by the facts. Power, wealth or success makes a person more liable to the temptation to feel superior to others and treat them accordingly.

The saints were not hypocrites because they chose to suffer, perhaps too much but at least they wanted to share the suffering of others and their Master. They were extremists but not at the cost of other people’s suffering. Most of them shared the lives of the poor and they understood far better than most of us the real meaning of evil. St Vincent took the place of a galley slave because he couldn’t bear to see the man being tortured unjustly. They knew the only solution to unnecessary suffering is to explain why it exists, how it can be prevented and put their words into action. They witnessed how hell exists in this world and realised we are all responsible if we do nothing to change society and the best way to do that is by inculcating fear as well as hope in our minds and hearts. Not to be afraid of hell is not to be afraid of being evil and to think we can get away with whatever we like provided we are careful. We have to be made to appreciate the extent to which we can ruin people’s lives even by ignoring them and making them feel unwanted.

It is probably impossible to strike the correct balance between inspiring people with the hope of heaven and discouraging them with the fear of hell. I believe it is better to err on the side of caution knowing how easily I have been tempted and afterwards regret my weakness and selfishness. It is obviously wrong to strike fear into children’s hearts but it is also wrong to give them the impression they don’t need to think about whether something is right or wrong. The millions of abortions performed in recent years is an unmistakable sign of decadence in our society. When heaven and hell disappear from the scene we can easily believe it doesn’t really matter how we behave as long as we can get away with it. If the saints hadn’t existed the world would be in a far worse state than it is - and that is a terrifying prospect…

 

[PumpkinCookie]

In that case hell is justified!

I’m sorry but this seems circular to me. It seems like you’re saying hell is justified because it is the necessary suffering that accompanies…hell? I don’t get it. You seem to be suggesting that hell has “rewards” to some extent. If so, then how can it also be a punishment? Where does the catechism of 1993 say there are rewards in hell? I don’t understand. If you mean the rewards given by sin in this life, I could see that, but how can eternal suffering be necessary in order to retroactively achieve the rewards of sin during life? Further, how can eternal suffering be what is required to achieve the limited rewards of sin?

The worst of all evils is** unnecessary** suffering** deliberately inflicted on innocent** people.

OK sure, I will grant that. It would be even worse if the people in hell were also innocent. That they’re guilty makes it slightly (but only slightly) less heinous to torture them forever.

In that case material and spiritual pleasure is of an equally astonishing magnitude if we are to judge by the colossal amount of evil in this world. It is wishful thinking that one greatly exceeds the other - unless one is a hedonist of course…

I don’t understand what you mean. In my personal experience of sin I feel a kind of superficial satisfaction or happiness but it is very temporary and accompanied by guilt, remorse, and pain of various kinds. This doesn’t last forever though!

That remark could have been made of previous generations. A panoramic view of mankind is far more balanced. There is no reason to believe heaven and hell are unbalanced choices, nor does either choice presuppose an unbalanced mind! A theoretical child has no wants! Genetic fallacy.

No, previous generations do matter because they have created the context in which we live. Their thoughts, desires, and opinions have already affected us. I submit that only a truly insane person would “choose hell” knowing its nature and scope. For you to argue the opposite, I will need an illustration. Tell me a story about the man who “chooses” hell but is also rational and “balanced” as you say.Yes, a theoretical child has no wants, and that is why their theoretical opinion doesn’t actually matter.

I would do anything, absolutely anything to save a child from hell. The only way to make certain that the child will not end up in hell is to not create the child in the first place. Fortunately, hell is not real so there is no issue.

I do not mean to say “hell is the invention of Greco-Roman and Zoroastrian paganism therefore it is insane and untrue.” I meant to offer a competing explanation for the doctrine. Something in opposition to “the reveal truth of the true God.”

Jesus also said “I am the way and the truth and the life”. We are not left to find the way on our own. He also said “With God all things are possible”. Sceptics underestimate both His power and His love, taking the life and teaching of Jesus for granted as if they are an everyday event - an event which has changed the history of mankind.

OK but I, and most of our fellow human beings, do not believe Jesus can speak for the true God. We could all be wrong, I accept this. However, I no longer accept Jesus’ words as being truth.

There is no evidence that most do and every reason to believe the vast majority of human beings are not diabolical.

We can agree to disagree about the testimony of virtually all of the RCC saints. You seem willing to abandon their opinions. I am perfectly happy to do this as well. But consider, if they’re so wrong about this, why would you rely on their testimony about anything else?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

St Augustine is far from being the ultimate authority on heaven and hell. His teaching was modified by St Thomas Aquinas whose reasoning was more logical and systematic with the advantage of almost a thousand years of progress in insight and knowledge of the implications of Christ’s teaching:

Fair enough, but please explain why Aquinas teaches that souls are reprobated by God. Just google “reprobate Aquinas” or something similar. I am perfectly willing to throw out Augustine’s teachings as well, so we are in agreement. However, I do not think Aquinas makes much of an improvement (if there could be an improvement)!

There is no disagreement between the Pope and the Catechism:

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.

Ok this statement actually makes no sense. How can a thing be “proper to each individual” but also not personal? Please give an example of something you think fits this description. Further, Aquinas insists that each of us inherit actual guilt simply by being born. Further, he explicitly states that he thinks we’re required to believe this if we’re RC believers. We’re “jointly and severally liable” to use modern legal terminology.

Read question 81:

newadvent.org/summa/2081.htm

This is off-topic. The point is, to introduce a child into the world knowing that they will be born an enemy of God and have a chance to be tortured in hell for eternity is utterly irresponsible and wrong. I do no think this central point has been refuted.

No one considers the saints to be infallible nor is the truth determined the majority. The development of Catholic doctrine is evidence that it is not static and fossilised but takes into account discoveries in theology, philosophy, psychology and sociology. The teaching of Jesus and the social teaching of the Church are the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the principles of liberty, equality and particularly fraternity.

I agree, the saint’s testimony could easily be thrown out as unreliable or wrong. Because the truth cannot change or contradict itself does not mean it is “static or fossilised” my friend! However, for an organization that claims “the fullness of truth revealed by God,” they sure change their minds a lot!