If the creation of this world is not logically consistent with a loving act, then why do we bring children in to this world?

[IWantGod]

Why expose children to the possibility of suffering and pain, if the possibility of these things are contradictory to a loving act of creation?

 

[Bradski]

Why expose children to the possibility of suffering and pain, if the possibility of these things are contradictory to a loving act of creation?

I had to read that a few times before I understood what you meant. At least what I think you meant. That we have children, therefore creation is a loving act.

Was anyone arguing the case against that?

 

[IWantGod]

I had to read that a few times before I understood what you meant. At least what I think you meant. That we have children, therefore creation is a loving act.

Was anyone arguing the case against that?

Well, it is said that it is inconstant with God’s love to create or put humans in this kind of world.

If that is true, then why isn’t it also true that it is inconsistent with our love to create children in this world.?

 

[Bradski]

Well, it is said that it is inconstant with God’s love to create or put humans in this kind of world.

If that is true, then why isn’t it also true that it is inconsistent with our love to create children in this world.?

Can’t say that I’ve heard anyone claim the first. Although I have heard that it appears He doesn’t act as a loving father. You know, free will, problem of evil. Whereas we seem to do our darndest to look after our own children and protect them from evil. Whilst allowing them as much free will as it doesn’t conflict with their safety.

 

[IWantGod]

Can’t say that I’ve heard anyone claim the first. Although I have heard that it appears He doesn’t act as a loving father. You know, free will, problem of evil. Whereas we seem to do our darndest to look after our own children and protect them from evil. Whilst allowing them as much free will as it doesn’t conflict with their safety.

So you don’t think it is inconsistent love to put humans or any conscious being in this kind of world.?

Okay. what would you say to the idea that you cannot always protect them no matter how hard we try, is their existence still justified knowing pain and suffering could be looming around every corner. And what about the mortality of their existence?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Yes, procreation is definitely irrational. Unfortunately that blind nature, using the blind process of evolution made the process pleasurable, and most people procreate at a young age, before they grow up and before they realize that it is a dumb idea to “breed like rabbits”. Fortunately we are now able to separate the pleasure from the end, and we could curb that mad rush into overpopulating, and maybe even decreasing the overcrowding.

As for the irrationality of bringing children into the world, at least we try to help them, quite contrary to what God does. But, yes, it is irrational. Too bad that every living being is irrational. Maybe that is how we are “created” in God’s image. Irrationality is the norm - inherited from God. .

 

[Mintaka]

God made the world perfect. Humans made it imperfect.

But Christ came into the world to let us join His Body. Through His death and resurrection, and our Baptisms, He makes us capable of helping to convert other humans away from sin, as well as making the world a better place. We have been warned that the world will be full of good and bad people until the Lord’s final Judgment; but we are also told that we are expected to invest our talents in making things better.

If you are a Christian called to bring humans into the world, and you refuse for reasons of fear of the world being hard, you are refusing to reinforce the Lord’s Body with new members.

Despair is a sin.

Christians are supposed to confront darkness, and to bring the light of hope in Christ to the people living in darkness. We are not supposed to give up because it is too hard.

 

[IWantGod]

Yes, procreation is definitely irrational. Unfortunately that blind nature, using the blind process of evolution made the process pleasurable, and most people procreate at a young age, before they grow up and before they realize that it is a dumb idea to “breed like rabbits”. Fortunately we are now able to separate the pleasure from the end, and we could curb that mad rush into overpopulating, and maybe even decreasing the overcrowding.

As for the irrationality of bringing children into the world, at least we try to help them, quite contrary to what God does. But, yes, it is irrational. Too bad that every living being is irrational. Maybe that is how we are “created” in God’s image. Irrationality is the norm - inherited from God. .

Yes, without knowledge to the contrary, it does seem as if God is just a spectator when it comes to regulating human behavior. But at the very least God offers eternal bliss. If there is no God, not only is there the potential to suffer the most horrendous forms of pain, physical and psychological, humans also have to face the knowledge of their mortality; the fact that they are going to cease to exist.

In that context would it be better to not have children at all? Is there any point in creating more people?

 

[MrsAngelala]

I have often wondered this, myself. For 36 years I was never able to find a good reason for children. All of the people I know who have children on purpose do it because they want them, which is apparently supersufficient reason and preparation to have them. How many times I’ve wondered whether anyone actually looks at him/herself before deciding it’s a good idea to inflict himself on a person who doesn’t get the option to say No! In my experience, other than the selfish babies, the only other kind of babies are mistakes/accidents. On the part of the parents, not on the part of God. (Please don’t ignore the fact that I am simply relating my own experience.)

There are also all kinds of personal and circumstantial reasons why having kids would be stupid in my case. However, I recently found two actual, good reasons for children. I’m sure I’m not the first person to come up with them, but I had never encountered them elsewhere:

1. 
   *]In order for a person to know God, first he must exist. So I could theoretically cooperate with God in creating someone who would then have the opportunity to know Him. This is the most precious gift I could think to offer anyone; and I say this from a place in my life where knowing God is not a joyful thing.
   *]Having already come up with number one, I was telling my husband last month that I still couldn’t find a way to be happy about the idea of having children. He countered that raising children would give us insight into God we couldn’t access any other way. *And I know you want to know God as much as you can, Angela. Don’t try to tell me you don’t. * I actually was happy about that idea, and in the next moment so astounded by my own happiness that my jaw dropped and I turned to stare at him… which wasn’t too smart because I was driving at the time. But, clearly, we survived.
   
   I can’t disagree that this is a cruel world, and I can’t pretend to understand how God’s interaction with it makes the slightest bit of sense. I am personally not grateful to be alive, and frankly, if I didn’t exist, I wouldn’t know it, so I am unable to wrap my head around the idea that existence is objectively better than non-existence, which I have seen argued elsewhere on this forum. But,
   
   IF
   I believe in God
   I believe He is good - despite all appearances to the contrary, and despite living in the aftermath of the Fall He allowed
   
   THEN
   It is good to know Him
   
   THEREFORE
   Procreation is an act of love
   
   BECAUSE
   Existence is in fact the only way a person can ever know God
   
   **

 

[IWantGod]

I have often wondered this, myself. For 36 years I was never able to find a good reason for children. All of the people I know who have children on purpose do it because they want them, which is apparently supersufficient reason and preparation to have them. How many times I’ve wondered whether anyone actually looks at him/herself before deciding it’s a good idea to inflict himself on a person who doesn’t get the option to say No! In my experience, other than the selfish babies, the only other kind of babies are mistakes/accidents. On the part of the parents, not on the part of God. (Please don’t ignore the fact that I am simply relating my own experience.)

There are also all kinds of personal and circumstantial reasons why having kids would be stupid in my case. However, I recently found two actual, good reasons for children. I’m sure I’m not the first person to come up with them, but I had never encountered them elsewhere:

1. 
   *]In order for a person to know God, first he must exist. So I could theoretically cooperate with God in creating someone who would then have the opportunity to know Him. This is the most precious gift I could think to offer anyone; and I say this from a place in my life where knowing God is not a joyful thing.
   *]Having already come up with number one, I was telling my husband last month that I still couldn’t find a way to be happy about the idea of having children. He countered that raising children would give us insight into God we couldn’t access any other way. *And I know you want to know God as much as you can, Angela. Don’t try to tell me you don’t. * I actually was happy about that idea, and in the next moment so astounded by my own happiness that my jaw dropped and I turned to stare at him… which wasn’t too smart because I was driving at the time. But, clearly, we survived.
   
   I can’t disagree that this is a cruel world, and I can’t pretend to understand how God’s interaction with it makes the slightest bit of sense. I am personally not grateful to be alive, and frankly, if I didn’t exist, I wouldn’t know it, so I am unable to wrap my head around the idea that existence is objectively better than non-existence, which I have seen argued elsewhere on this forum. But,
   
   IF
   I believe in God
   I believe He is good - despite all appearances to the contrary, and despite living in the aftermath of the Fall He allowed
   
   THEN
   It is good to know Him
   
   THEREFORE
   Procreation is an act of love
   
   BECAUSE
   Existence is in fact the only way a person can ever know God
   
   **
   
   
   
   This makes perfect rational sense. Of course, what other rational reason is there to create a child other than to know God for all eternity.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Well, it is said that it is inconstant with God’s love to create or put humans in this kind of world.

If that is true, then why isn’t it also true that it is inconsistent with our love to create children in this world.?

As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. “I tell you the truth,” he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.

The difference is that we don’t have a choice about the kind of world. God is the rich man who despite having all sorts of worlds available, gave us this broken and imperfect one. We are the poor woman, who fight to give our children the best parts of this imperfect world that we can.

 

[davidv]

The difference is that we don’t have a choice about the kind of world. God is the rich man who despite having all sorts of worlds available, gave us this broken and imperfect one. We are the poor woman, who fight to give our children the best parts of this imperfect world that we can.

This is contrary to Catholic teaching. God did not give us a broken world. Our ancestors’, and our own personal, sins are the cause of the brokenness.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

This is contrary to Catholic teaching. God did not give us a broken world. Our ancestors’, and our own personal, sins are the cause of the brokenness.

If a child can easily break and subsequently choke on a toy, it’s not a “perfect” toy for a child.

 

[IWantGod]

The difference is that we don’t have a choice about the kind of world. God is the rich man who despite having all sorts of worlds available, gave us this broken and imperfect one. We are the poor woman, who fight to give our children the best parts of this imperfect world that we can.

But supposedly you know this a broken world so why subject more people to it? Better they where never born at all than live suffer and cease to exist.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

But supposedly you know this a broken world so why subject more people to it? Better they where never born at all than live suffer and cease to exist.

Sure, and if you expect that your child will primarily suffer, then it is absolutely reasonable to not have children. But “broken world” does not imply “every single person will primarily suffer.”

 

[IWantGod]

Sure, and if you expect that your child will primarily suffer, then it is absolutely reasonable to not have children. But “broken world” does not imply “every single person will primarily suffer.”

But if the world is not good enough for human life, since a good God would not put humans in this world, and we have to face our mortality, than what exactly is the point of creating people exactly? Not only is there the possibility of suffering like cancer, potential violence, death, etc, there does not seem to be any point to it beyond the desire to reproduce.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

But if the world is not good enough for human life, since a good God would not put humans in this world, and we have to face our mortality, than what exactly is the point of creating people exactly? Not only is there the possibility of suffering like cancer, potential violence, death, etc, there does not seem to be any point to it beyond the desire to reproduce.

Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?

The failing of Cain and the rich people is not that their gifts were literally worthless. Their failing is that they could have done better. God’s failing isn’t that he made a literally unlivable world, its that he could have made a better one but didn’t.

 

[IWantGod]

The failing of Cain and the rich people is not that their gifts were literally worthless. Their failing is that they could have done better. God’s failing isn’t that he made a literally unlivable world, its that he could have made a better one but didn’t.

As opposed to a world where there is no God, no objective purpose or meaning, a world with any number of potential for suffering and no guarantee of happiness, and we cease to exist.?

That’s the world you would put people in?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

As opposed to a world where there is no God, no objective purpose or meaning, a world with any number of potential for suffering and no guarantee of happiness, and we cease to exist?

That’s the world you would put people in?

I mean, the potential for suffering and lack of happiness, or possibility of sudden non-existence isn’t really affected by the existence of a God.

That aside, people on this board are fond of accusing non-religious people of “fundamentalist” interpretations of religious teachings. But here we see that religious people are just as willing to turn around and take “fundamentalist” interpretations of non-religious teachings. The non-existence of a God does not guarantee a lack of purpose or meaning, although a “fundamentalist atheist” might say so.

 

[IWantGod]

I mean, the potential for suffering and lack of happiness, or possibility of sudden non-existence isn’t really affected by the existence of a God…

Tell that to the billions of people who believe in God. If God exist then we have eternal bliss to look forward to and our lives and actions really do mean something in the grand scene of things.

The non-existence of a God does not guarantee a lack of purpose or meaning, although a “fundamentalist atheist” might say so.

Metaphysical naturalism does mean there is no objective purpose or meaning to life. Of course we can make up fantasies in our heads and try to apply them to reality. But i would prefer the real thing.