E
ethereality
Guest
A priest told me months ago that God’s creation is always an act of mercy, because it is objectively better to exist than not to exist. He said that to exist is good, because one has options; if one does not exist, one doesn’t have options – even further, one doesn’t even have the ability to have options. So to exist is good.
I’m not certain I understand this argument. The implication is that it is better to exist and suffer than to not exist (and not suffer). How is goodness defined in this argument? I had argued with this priest, “Sometimes I think it would be better for me not to exist [than to suffer like this],” to which he replied that it was a nonsensical statement in that none of us can know what it means for us not to exist – none of us have experienced the nonexistence of ourselves, that what I actually meant was, “Sometimes I think it would be better for me to be somewhere else apart from this current suffering,” i.e. still existing but elsewhere.
What about hell: Is it better for a soul to exist in hell than to not exist? It seems to me that according to Christianity the answer must be yes (although Seventh Day Adventists say no), but I cannot see how such is true. Repeating some arguments justifying hell (as better than annihilation): It is contrary to the wisdom of God to create something and later uncreate it; if God is Mercy, then being in hell must be more merciful than being annihilated – but such a statement does not really make sense to me, perhaps because I don’t understand hell. The argument comes to mind: If someone is suffering from a terminal illness, it is better for that person to die than to continue suffering; it seems likewise, that it is better for someone to be annihilated than to suffer outside of time (i.e., for eternity in hell), and perhaps this is the Seventh Day Adventists’ argument.
Of course, I think they also quote the Bible; at least, they claim the Bible supports rather than contradicts their doctrine (just as the Church does for matters not explicitly stated). Mark 9:42-48 comes to mind. [BIBLEDRB]Mark 9:42-48[/BIBLEDRB] The imagery is of being thrown into a fire. If one throws a wooden chair into the fire, the fire burns away the chair such that all that remains is ash – the chair is gone, and is replaced by ash. The chair does not burn for all eternity, as still a chair and still on fire. Could this be what Jesus is teaching, that the soul is annihilated in hell as a chair is destroyed by fire? I use a wooden chair here for a simple commonplace example, but anything can be burned away by a fire hot enough.
The other difficulty in understanding hell is that hell is a separation from God, hence the source of the suffering, since suffering is a lack of goodness. But if one is separated from God, who is existence, then doesn’t that mean that one is reduced to non-existence? Again, annihilation is the result. A corollary here is that, if God is infinite, then surely God must also be with the souls who are in hell: How then are those souls separated from God?
Also coming to mind is Matthew 26:20-25, noting verse 24, [BIBLEDRB]Matthew 26:24[/BIBLEDRB] It seems to me, though, that Jesus is simply underscoring how evil the betrayal would be via hyperbole. Furthermore, it appears Jesus literally remarks about being born, not about being conceived: better to die in utero, not better to never have existed. So I don’t see this passage as furthering any argument regarding hell; I mention it only for for the sake of completeness (since it’s thought-provoking regarding hell), although I am interested to hear of any theological controversy here among orthodox theologians (e.g. if it has any implications regarding the mercy of God).
I’m not certain I understand this argument. The implication is that it is better to exist and suffer than to not exist (and not suffer). How is goodness defined in this argument? I had argued with this priest, “Sometimes I think it would be better for me not to exist [than to suffer like this],” to which he replied that it was a nonsensical statement in that none of us can know what it means for us not to exist – none of us have experienced the nonexistence of ourselves, that what I actually meant was, “Sometimes I think it would be better for me to be somewhere else apart from this current suffering,” i.e. still existing but elsewhere.
What about hell: Is it better for a soul to exist in hell than to not exist? It seems to me that according to Christianity the answer must be yes (although Seventh Day Adventists say no), but I cannot see how such is true. Repeating some arguments justifying hell (as better than annihilation): It is contrary to the wisdom of God to create something and later uncreate it; if God is Mercy, then being in hell must be more merciful than being annihilated – but such a statement does not really make sense to me, perhaps because I don’t understand hell. The argument comes to mind: If someone is suffering from a terminal illness, it is better for that person to die than to continue suffering; it seems likewise, that it is better for someone to be annihilated than to suffer outside of time (i.e., for eternity in hell), and perhaps this is the Seventh Day Adventists’ argument.
Of course, I think they also quote the Bible; at least, they claim the Bible supports rather than contradicts their doctrine (just as the Church does for matters not explicitly stated). Mark 9:42-48 comes to mind. [BIBLEDRB]Mark 9:42-48[/BIBLEDRB] The imagery is of being thrown into a fire. If one throws a wooden chair into the fire, the fire burns away the chair such that all that remains is ash – the chair is gone, and is replaced by ash. The chair does not burn for all eternity, as still a chair and still on fire. Could this be what Jesus is teaching, that the soul is annihilated in hell as a chair is destroyed by fire? I use a wooden chair here for a simple commonplace example, but anything can be burned away by a fire hot enough.
The other difficulty in understanding hell is that hell is a separation from God, hence the source of the suffering, since suffering is a lack of goodness. But if one is separated from God, who is existence, then doesn’t that mean that one is reduced to non-existence? Again, annihilation is the result. A corollary here is that, if God is infinite, then surely God must also be with the souls who are in hell: How then are those souls separated from God?
Also coming to mind is Matthew 26:20-25, noting verse 24, [BIBLEDRB]Matthew 26:24[/BIBLEDRB] It seems to me, though, that Jesus is simply underscoring how evil the betrayal would be via hyperbole. Furthermore, it appears Jesus literally remarks about being born, not about being conceived: better to die in utero, not better to never have existed. So I don’t see this passage as furthering any argument regarding hell; I mention it only for for the sake of completeness (since it’s thought-provoking regarding hell), although I am interested to hear of any theological controversy here among orthodox theologians (e.g. if it has any implications regarding the mercy of God).
