Quality of Life vs. Quantity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neil_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Neil_Anthony

Guest
What’s better, to have two children who won’t have enough to eat and probably starve to death, but will both get to enjoy eternity in heaven, or just one kid who will have lots to eat and eventually die and spend eternity in heaven?
 
Newbie2 said:
Faulty premise to the question. Both will eventually die. 😉
Click to expand...
Yes, and I said that in the questions…
I don’t see how anyone can argue that 1 is better than 2, when the human lifespan is so short and human suffering so minor compared with the bliss and eternity of heaven.
 
I agree w/ Newbie. Plus, a “one vs. two” argument doesn’t make a lot of sense: A second child isn’t going to consume so much that w/out him the first child would have “lots” to eat, but w/ him neither would have enough. A better question would be is it better to have one or two kids who will be physically well provided for (food, clothes, housing, education, etc.), or 5 or more who will not be as well provided for, physically (i.e, will have to wear hand me downs & 2nd hand clothes, public (or home) schooled instead of private, pay their own way to college, more modest house, share rooms, buy “warehouse” foods, not eat out, etc). If one more child is going to send the family into extreme poverty (where literally no one will have enough to eat), then I would say it is better to care properly for the children already born than try to add more (and I believe the Church considers this a justifiable reason for a couple to avoid a pregnancy).

In Christ,

Ellen
 
ALLGIRLS said:
If one more child is going to send the family into extreme poverty (where literally no one will have enough to eat), then I would say it is better to care properly for the children already born than try to add more (and I believe the Church considers this a justifiable reason for a couple to avoid a pregnancy).
Click to expand...
That seems like the logical common view, that if having more kids means the whole family will starve, just take care of the ones you already have.

But, thinking about it, even if you all starve, thats one more soul in heaven to worship God for eternity. I don’t see how it makes sense to choose less kids just to avoid a minor temporary thing like everyone starving to death. You won’t care that you starved once you’re in heaven.

Oh… but what about grandkids… hmmm… :o
 
Neil_Anthony said:
That seems like the logical common view, that if having more kids means the whole family will starve, just take care of the ones you already have.

But, thinking about it, even if you all starve, thats one more soul in heaven to worship God for eternity. I don’t see how it makes sense to choose less kids just to avoid a minor temporary thing like everyone starving to death. You won’t care that you starved once you’re in heaven.

Oh… but what about grandkids… hmmm… :o
Click to expand...
Well, are we assuming everyone is starving to death before hitting the age of reason? Because growing up in a miserable condition could very well cause the children to reject God, and they may not repent before they died. Starvation is a horrible way to die, and many would wonder why God is allowing them to suffer so, and want nothing to do w/ a God who would allow that. So then you have condenmed souls suffering for all eternity, when they didn’t have to come into existance in the first place.

What about grandkids? Hopefully if grandparents are in the picture and have the ability to help feed the kids, they wouuld (I know I would. I’d even do it for nieces, nephews, friends’ kids, etc).

In Christ,

Ellen
 
What a minute…Is this whole thread just being facetious? (yes, I’m a little slow at times). Is someone complaining about not having grandkids (or not having “lots” of grandkids), when if they did they wouldn’t have enough to eat?

In Christ,

Ellen
 
Neil_Anthony said:
What’s better, to have two children who won’t have enough to eat and probably starve to death, but will both get to enjoy eternity in heaven, or just one kid who will have lots to eat and eventually die and spend eternity in heaven?
Click to expand...
Which option is God’s plan, and which is not? Then I will decide.

If you think that the choice is ours to make, then that is the faulty premise.

Peace,
-Robert
 
ALLGIRLS said:
What a minute…Is this whole thread just being facetious? (yes, I’m a little slow at times). Is someone complaining about not having grandkids (or not having “lots” of grandkids), when if they did they wouldn’t have enough to eat?

In Christ,

Ellen
Click to expand...
What I meant is, if you have that one extra kid that makes the whole family starve to death, that isn’t really more people in heaven, because then the kids would starve before they had a chance to produce offspring.

So what we really need is to produce the most kids that we can that will make it past childbearing age, to maximize population in the future.
 
Robert_in_SD said:
Which option is God’s plan, and which is not? Then I will decide.

If you think that the choice is ours to make, then that is the faulty premise.

Peace,
-Robert
Click to expand...
How would you discern which choice was God’s will?
 
ALLGIRLS said:
I agree w/ Newbie. Plus, a “one vs. two” argument doesn’t make a lot of sense: A second child isn’t going to consume so much that w/out him the first child would have “lots” to eat, but w/ him neither would have enough. A better question would be is it better to have one or two kids who will be physically well provided for (food, clothes, housing, education, etc.), or 5 or more who will not be as well provided for, physically (i.e, will have to wear hand me downs & 2nd hand clothes, public (or home) schooled instead of private, pay their own way to college, more modest house, share rooms, buy “warehouse” foods, not eat out, etc). If one more child is going to send the family into extreme poverty (where literally no one will have enough to eat), then I would say it is better to care properly for the children already born than try to add more (and I believe the Church considers this a justifiable reason for a couple to avoid a pregnancy).

In Christ,

Ellen
Click to expand...
Uhm. Those 5 or more who are not “as well provided for” are PERFECTLY well provided for. There is nothing wrong with anything you listed there - in fact, homeschooling can be better than any other type of school at some points, and public schools are not created equal. There is NO problem with sharing rooms or not eating out…That is life without all the “extras” people mistakenly think they need. I grew up like that, something which I am VERY thankful for. I am currently paying my way through college. I’m FINE with that. I would much rather have 8 younger siblings than new clothes all the time or my parents paying for my college.

That being said, if one more child will mean everyone literally won’t have enough to eat (though that would be difficult at first, since babies don’t need to eat any solid foods for several months and then only very small amounts), then pregnancy should be avoided.
 
Is the premise of the question, “Is it better to live a short life here and spend more time in eternity or live a long life here and a (relatively) shorter time in eternity?”?

Or…is it “You’ve only got enough food to feed one child out of two. Is it better to feed one so that he/she could live out their life rather than have the two both starve to death?” ?

Seems like a combination of both.
 
Newbie2 said:
Is the premise of the question, “Is it better to live a short life here and spend more time in eternity or live a long life here and a (relatively) shorter time in eternity?”?

Or…is it “You’ve only got enough food to feed one child out of two. Is it better to feed one so that he/she could live out their life rather than have the two both starve to death?” ?

Seems like a combination of both.
Click to expand...
I’m asking if its better to have two people whose lives are painful and short (but result in two souls in heaven for eternity) than one person whose life is longer and more comfortable, but, of course, just results in one soul in heaven for eternity.
 
Neil_Anthony said:
How would you discern which choice was God’s will?
Click to expand...
Prayer and acceptance of what God allows. If God wants me to have only one child, and I am open to that will, then that is God’s plan. If he wants me to have more than one, and I am open to that, then it is God’s plan. If I seek to manipulate the outcome to suit my own human desires, then I am not seeking God’s will.

Your hypothetical seems to be assuming that if I do nothing, then I will have two children who will starve, whereas if I act affirmatively to prevent a second birth, I will have only one. These are false assumptions. It may be that I will only have one child, and regardless of how hard my wife and I try, we will have no more, because it is not God’s will. Or we may try to have only one child, but end up having twins. The important thing is not that we have lots of children, but that we remain open to the possibility that God will use our marriage to create life.

Peace,
-Robert
 
Neil_Anthony said:
That seems like the logical common view, that if having more kids means the whole family will starve, just take care of the ones you already have.

But, thinking about it, even if you all starve, thats one more soul in heaven to worship God for eternity. I don’t see how it makes sense to choose less kids just to avoid a minor temporary thing like everyone starving to death. You won’t care that you starved once you’re in heaven.

Oh… but what about grandkids… hmmm… :o
Click to expand...
I guess that you won’t care that you starved to death once in heaven. ??? So you think that is what God means for us? Interesting.
 
Neil_Anthony said:
I’m asking if its better to have two people whose lives are painful and short (but result in two souls in heaven for eternity) than one person whose life is longer and more comfortable, but, of course, just results in one soul in heaven for eternity.
Click to expand...
I don’t get the “just one soul in heavn for eternity”. Why couldn’t they both spend eternity in heaven?
 
I now understand why people on this forum dislike population control.
 
I voted for the first option. The more people we have in Heaven, the better. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top