What could make life "not worth living?"

[PumpkinCookie]

Before I answer, I would like to ask you a question. It seems that one of your main points is that if one ends up in hell, then whatever earthly pleasures one experiences and whatever good one has done toward others here on earth, is of no consequence. My question is do you believe the reverse? That is, if one ends up in heaven, then whatever pain and suffering one experiences and whatever bad one has done toward others here on earth, is of no consequence?

OK, to answer this question, I will have to respond first with my personal view, and then second with what I perceive to be a “Catholic” view.

1. Simply put, no. I believe that if one goes to heaven or lives in the World to Come, then all the evil one has experienced and caused will have to be resolved. Similarly, all the good one has experienced and caused will be resolved. I do not know how this resolution will occur, but I believe God will heal the brokenness we have caused in others and reward the goodness we have done for them. I also believe he will punish us in a way that restores us to goodness and heals the evil we have caused. He will also heal the pain and suffering we have experienced due to the evil actions of others and life in the imperfect world. Our actions in life, and the things that happen to us, make us into who we are. I believe God will ultimately use the imperfections we have caused and experienced to make us into good human beings who will enjoy life in the World to Come. But, I don’t believe in an endless hell, so I can’t see a reason to suppose that a life is ever “not worth living.”
2. I suppose a “Catholic” answer would be similar in some ways. “Purgatory” will sooth our outrage at the idea that heinous sinners who have harmed many will “get off scot-free” simply by “believing in Jesus.” Also, the idea that people will be rewarded in heaven in varying degrees according to the good they have done will make our good actions “worth it” to some people’s way of thinking.

However, many Christian believers seem to think that the awesome magnitude of heaven totally dwarfs our earthly lives into insignificance. The only thing that matters is getting to heaven. Doesn’t matter how, doesn’t matter how much we suffer or what evil we cause: we just have to “repent and believe in the Gospel” in order to go to heaven. Granted, Catholics are certainly less like this than many protestant groups. This radical orientation toward the afterlife is also present in Islam, in my opinion.

From this point of view, just like “getting to heaven” is a total success, “going to hell” is a radical and total failure: a life not worth living. The focus is individualistic and exclusively self-interested.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I just found this on a blog a follow: thomism.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/a-thesis-in-predestination/

Let’s look at Judas. Judas, following Christ’s Words, personally would have been better off not born; however, for the rest of us, his actions led to the Sacrifice that reconciled creation with God. In other words, it is better for Judas that he not be born, but for us, it was good for him to be born.

This might sound like the rest of us are using Judas at his expense, but remember that he too could have repented like St. Peter, and enjoyed the fruit of his actions*

Christi pax,

Lucretius

*hopefully in the end he did do this

Do you seriously believe this? The lives of the damned are “worth it” because they’re sacrificial lambs, endlessly burning, for those in heaven? Have you ever read “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas?”

 

[PumpkinCookie]

What is “meaning?” To a Christian, the goal of life is to know and love God. Anything less makes a life meaningless, because ultimately God is meaning. The book of Ecclesiastes is the best existential philosophy writing ever (even better than Kierkegaard), and it ends with the command to follow the commandments. Even Christianity does nihilism better than the nihilists! This Scripture is the best reflection of the world without the Incarnation.

From my personal life, I’ve rejected Western atheism on the grounds that it is nihilism: that it rejects meaning in the world. I’ve found, in part from meditating on Viktor Frankl, that a man must believe in meaning, else he distracts himself with carnal pleasures and television (not to mention its incoherence) I then learned that ultimately any philosophical position that accepts objective meaning, in a sense, a fortiori leads to the Christian view. In other words, all roads lead to Rome, but all those Roads lead out of Rome too: into the wild wilderness of subjectivist, meaningless nihilistic self worship. If one will not choose Christ, he is left with nothing.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

OK dude. Sounds good. I’m not an atheist or a nihilist, nor do I think anyone should be, given the available evidence. However, I respect other’s beliefs.

But, I do think that if there is a hell, then the lives of people who go there are “not worth living” in a very deep way, much deeper than if their lives were simply the result of random fluctuations of matter. Nothing should inspire more despair than the idea that anyone at all is experiencing eternal torment, and yet most Christians seem to ignore it. It is like they think “I got mine” so that’s all that matters.

People here seem to be appealing to a kind of sacrificial consequentialism regarding this question. “The lives of those in hell are worth it…to those who make it to heaven.” Please forgive me, but this seems like a disgusting ethical position. “The suffering of sweatshop workers is worth it…to those who can buy cheap clothes.”

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Because, perhaps, those in hell still cherish their existence, tacitly agreeing with God that their creation was worth it. We’d have to ask them, I guess.

Well, if they still cherish their existence, then it can’t be such a bad place after all right? I mean, POWs commit suicide to avoid torture, and people ask to be euthanized all the time due to excessive pain and no hope for recovery. But, if the souls in hell are fine with their circumstances, then I guess they must be better off than many of those living on earth?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Depression makes life not worth living for many people who have it.

I’ve never been depressed, thank God. I’m not sure what it would be like. Is it fair to say that depression makes life seem to be “not worth it?” I think the lives of the depressed are still intrinsically worthwhile, but they don’t think so due to mental illness. If they could be cured of the illness, surely they would consider life “worth it” right?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Poorly catechized, I would think.

I agree with you, but it is my faith in God that leads me to that conclusion.
Without God, life is reduced to a filling of one’s cup with evanessence.

For the unthinking and unprepared, there are no riches, no pleasure, no honour, no amount of power worth the pain of losing it all at the end of one’s life, when all that was, is no more.
For those who live each moment to its fullest, clinging to no future reward, but doing what has to be done, even in this case, there is no meaning to selfish quests.

When it all goes bad, wherein lies the hope that gives the toil and suffering significance?
It’s in love that we find purpose, the strength to carry on, and the joy of existence.

Since God exists, all life is worth the living. Those who do not know him might think otherwise.

I agree with your statements. The existence of the afterlife gives each of our actions eternal significance. The existence of God allows us to orient ourselves to the ground of being. Amen!

Do you really think I’m poorly catechized? Like honestly? What makes you think so? Because I don’t believe? How can anyone who knows not believe? This is off-topic of course, don’t need to respond.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

That is not the Church’s position. The Church specifically does not interpret the quotes you cite as an infallible implication. See:
CCC#1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.See also the lengthy THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED

Wait…if babies can go to heaven without baptism, then why is the “call” “all the more urgent” to get them baptized? That doesn’t make sense. If those who die in original sin only, don’t immediately descend straight to hell, permanently (as the Council of Florence infallibly proclaims) then what is the rush to baptize them? I suppose you could wait until the age of reason right? Has the Church changed its mind? Why would Bishop St. Fulgentius be so wrong? Why would Doctor Bishop St. Augustine be so wrong?

Very well, apologies for the tangent, although it was in the OP. I will complete your sentence this way: *A life lived in hell for all eternity is “worth it” because that soul’s example could enlighten multitudes as well as reveal the infinite goodness of God, for if we see that a soul goes to hell only by his own choice, then it reveals the vast goodness of the One rejected. *

But ultimately, I think the idea of “worth it” is kind of a word game and I leave it in quotes above.

Sarcasm Hmmm, ok so if life in hell is “worth it” then why don’t you go for it? You could be a hero! Your damnation would enlighten so many of us, and reveal the infinite goodness of God! Sarcasm

Please, please don’t take the above seriously. I am trying to point out that what you suppose is “worth it” for others doesn’t seem so valuable when applied to “you” right? This is straightforwardly hypocritical, I think. I don’t mean to offend, please show me why this is not hypocrisy.

 

[Aloysium]

Wait…if babies can go to heaven without baptism, then why is the “call” “all the more urgent” to get them baptized? That doesn’t make sense. If those who die in original sin only, don’t immediately descend straight to hell, permanently (as the Council of Florence infallibly proclaims) then what is the rush to baptize them? I suppose you could wait until the age of reason right? Has the Church changed its mind? Why would Bishop St. Fulgentius be so wrong? Why would Doctor Bishop St. Augustine be so wrong? . . . if life in hell is “worth it” then why don’t you go for it? You could be a hero! Your damnation would enlighten so many of us, and reveal the infinite goodness of God! Sarcasm . . . what you suppose is “worth it” for others doesn’t seem so valuable when applied to “you” right? This is straightforwardly hypocritical, I think. I don’t mean to offend, please show me why this is not hypocrisy.

In my mom’s time, everything was centred around the church which sat in the middle of her home town. It was the meeting place for the entire community, and at the end of the day, people would congregate for prayers. If someone were not baptized in that environment, it meant that the parents cared little for the well being of their child, who would encounter some very serious social and spiritual problems, those which tend to be passed on generation after generation. They would be commiting a most grievous sin and likely encouraging sinfulness in their child. Still today, I believe, if one knows the teachings of the Church and fails to baptize their child, that is very bad; something is wrong.

As to the goodness of hell, one has to look beyond people’s egotistic interests. It is worth it because it reveals God’s justice and the horror of sin.

Is it worthwhile to lead a life of sin and end up in hell? Most assuredly not; that’s why it is hell. We exist within God’s eternal vision, nothing can take away what we have done. It can be understood and forgiven. If we cling to it, we cling to it. All will be known, as it always is by God, at the end of time. Hell might be the unalterable sad reality of an unrepented life, lived without love - the way it was and ever shall be; no happy ending. That person resurrected as he/she has chosen in this life to be.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

What I want to know is: why is this “wrong-headed?” Why is a life lived in endless hell “worth it?” Can you think of a reason? Make your case, but make it a positive case please. Like this:

“A life lived in endless hell is worth it because…[your answer here]…”

Also, it is possible there are other examples of lives that are not worth living. I can’t think of any, to be honest. However, make your case, but make it a positive case, like this:

“A life that is [circumstance here] is not worth living because [your answer here]…”

The only life that is not worth living is the life we live that lands us in hell.

I would rather not have been born than live all eternity in hell.

That said, suicide is another way to hell, so why bother with suicide?

 

[fhansen]

Well, if they still cherish their existence, then it can’t be such a bad place after all right? I mean, POWs commit suicide to avoid torture, and people ask to be euthanized all the time due to excessive pain and no hope for recovery. But, if the souls in hell are fine with their circumstances, then I guess they must be better off than many of those living on earth?

We’d probably be correct in assuming that even those who choose suicide would prefer existence to non-existence, but the pain they experience conflicts with that innate desire. I can’t tell you about souls in hell; except that they choose existence without God to existence with Him according to our faith.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But, if the souls in hell are fine with their circumstances, then I guess they must be better off than many of those living on earth?

This indicates a serious lack of logic.

We have no reason to believe the souls in hell are fine with their circumstances.

Scripture is entirely against that notion.

Common sense is too.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

This indicates a serious lack of logic.

We have no reason to believe the souls in hell are fine with their circumstances.

Scripture is entirely against that notion.

Common sense is too.

Yes, I agree with you. Fhansen suggested that maybe those in hell “cherish their existence.” I was attempting to show that one implication of that idea is that some people on earth are worse off than those in hell, because it is evident that many people do not “cherish their existence” on earth as-is.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

We’d probably be correct in assuming that even those who choose suicide would prefer existence to non-existence, but the pain they experience conflicts with that innate desire. I can’t tell you about souls in hell; except that they choose existence without God to existence with Him according to our faith.

You can’t tell me about the souls in hell, but you’re pretty sure they consider their lives to be “worth it?” I’m not sure people who commit suicide prefer existence. Their actions seem to reveal otherwise! That seems to be the most straightforward interpretation of the act, is it not?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

In my mom’s time, everything was centred around the church which sat in the middle of her home town. It was the meeting place for the entire community, and at the end of the day, people would congregate for prayers. If someone were not baptized in that environment, it meant that the parents cared little for the well being of their child, who would encounter some very serious social and spiritual problems, those which tend to be passed on generation after generation. They would be commiting a most grievous sin and likely encouraging sinfulness in their child. Still today, I believe, if one knows the teachings of the Church and fails to baptize their child, that is very bad; something is wrong.

As to the goodness of hell, one has to look beyond people’s egotistic interests. It is worth it because it reveals God’s justice and the horror of sin.

Is it worthwhile to lead a life of sin and end up in hell? Most assuredly not; that’s why it is hell. We exist within God’s eternal vision, nothing can take away what we have done. It can be understood and forgiven. If we cling to it, we cling to it. All will be known, as it always is by God, at the end of time. Hell might be the unalterable sad reality of an unrepented life, lived without love - the way it was and ever shall be; no happy ending. That person resurrected as he/she has chosen in this life to be.

OK so a life lived in hell is “worth it” for others, but not for you right? Is that not what you’re saying here? You’re asking me to “look beyond people’s egotistic interests” when it comes to others being in hell, but it is “most assuredly not” worth it for us to end up in hell. We’re special. We matter more. Is this not implied by what you are saying?

Regarding your grandmother’s village: are you saying that the tradition of infant baptism is the result of provincial superstition and rural communal life? Seriously, is that what you mean? The vast majority of humanity doesn’t live in this environment anymore, so I’m not sure how it is relevant. Also, what other Church teachings are the result of provincial superstition? How can we tell?

Do the Church’s infallible statements regarding the eternal fate of those who die in original sin only imply that babies who die without baptism go to hell or not? Use as many words as you like to answer, but a straightforward “yes” or “no” with supporting arguments and evidence will be most convincing to me, and probably many others.

 

[Aloysium]

OK so a life lived in hell is “worth it” for others, but not for you right? Is that not what you’re saying here? You’re asking me to “look beyond people’s egotistic interests” when it comes to others being in hell, but it is “most assuredly not” worth it for us to end up in hell. We’re special. We matter more. Is this not implied by what you are saying?

Regarding your grandmother’s village: are you saying that the tradition of infant baptism is the result of provincial superstition and rural communal life? Seriously, is that what you mean? The vast majority of humanity doesn’t live in this environment anymore, so I’m not sure how it is relevant. Also, what other Church teachings are the result of provincial superstition? How can we tell?

Do the Church’s infallible statements regarding the eternal fate of those who die in original sin only imply that babies who die without baptism go to hell or not? Use as many words as you like to answer, but a straightforward “yes” or “no” with supporting arguments and evidence will be most convincing to me, and probably many others.

FYI, it’s not a good idea to tell people what they are thinking. It does give feedback about how one’s comments are being understood, but it gets under one’s skin and is irritating. It comes across as a troll and especially if one’s thoughts are distorted, it sounds like a strawman argument.

Hell is the necessary outcome of creating beings with free will. That said, since God knew that we would sin, He sacrificed His Son that we might all be saved. There are people who decide to live without love. It is what they choose and as a result they become the sort of person who is hell in themselves. There’s no point thinking about “poor uncle Willie” who abused his nephews and what a horrible time he is having in hell (where there is no time in a worldly sense). What is horrible is the person he chose unrepentantly to become and remain. He is hell; all the fire and brimstone are ways to communicate to people who have no problem being hellish. I would go further with this but it is better to gaze at the stars than at a cesspool.

As to my mom, not grandma - I’m old, I have no idea what you mean by “provincial superstition”. Actually, what you say, I find offensive to my menory of very good, very bright and industrious people who participated in maintaining a far better world than this postmodern mess.
The point I was intending to make is that pronouncements about God’s will for us, has everything to do with the particular time and social environment. Even today, if my kids did not baptize theirs, given their background and what they know, there would be something very seriously wrong. They would be committing a sin, which someone who is ignorant would not be committing at all.

The Catholic Church was founded by God. As we are guided in our personal quest by the Holy Spirit, so too is the Church, in bringing us together to join in prayer, the sacraments, the mass and in contemplation of His holy word in scripture that represents the historical dialogue between God and man. The church has proven to me, a sinner, to be a source of strength and faith in my journey, one among many, to God.

I think your point about the Church and baptism was addressed by others in earlier posts. You want to keep repeating the same point; I have no interest in doing likewise.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

FYI, it’s not a good idea to tell people what they are thinking. It does give feedback about how one’s comments are being understood, but it gets under one’s skin and is irritating. It comes across as a troll and especially if one’s thoughts are distorted, it sounds like a strawman argument.

OK. So that isn’t what you mean? You don’t mean that hell is “worth it” for other people but simultaneously “not worth it” for you? What do you mean then? This wouldn’t be getting under your skin if it didn’t bear any relation to your hidden assumptions. Or, I could just be an idiotic “troll.” Either way, if I’m completely wrong about your hidden assumptions, it is a simple matter to clarify why my assertion is wrong.

Hell is the necessary outcome of creating beings with free will. That said, since God knew that we would sin, He sacrificed His Son that we might all be saved. There are people who decide to live without love. It is what they choose and as a result they become the sort of person who is hell in themselves. There’s no point thinking about “poor uncle Willie” who abused his nephews and what a horrible time he is having in hell (where there is no time in a worldly sense). What is horrible is the person he chose unrepentantly to become and remain. He is hell; all the fire and brimstone are ways to communicate to people who have no problem being hellish. I would go further with this but it is better to gaze at the stars than at a cesspool.

I sense a seething rage toward “uncle Willie” here. Is that unfounded? Is uncle Willie so evil that he deserves to be tortured in fire forever with no hope of either redemption or annihilation? If he is, how can it be said that his life was “worth living?” Are many people similarly evil? Do only those kinds of people lead lives that aren’t worth living? Are they just cesspools to you? Why would God have created them in the first place then? That seems rather cruel. Why infinitely sustain those whom he has always known would be “not worth it?” Or, is he just using them, like expendable tools? Except, instead of expending them…he punishes them forever? Are they “worth it” to the extent that they are useful tools?

Further, there are many ways to show that the existence of an eternal hell is not necessary for free will, justice, or any of the other rationalizations usually given.

As to my mom, not grandma - I’m old, I have no idea what you mean by “provincial superstition”. Actually, what you say, I find offensive to my menory of very good, very bright and industrious people who participated in maintaining a far better world than this postmodern mess.
The point I was intending to make is that pronouncements about God’s will for us, has everything to do with the particular time and social environment. Even today, if my kids did not baptize theirs, given their background and what they know, there would be something very seriously wrong. They would be committing a sin, which someone who is ignorant would not be committing at all.

Goodness, intelligence, and industry can exist within a superstitious and provincial culture of course. But, point taken, I did not mean to offend you!

Ok, so what you are saying is that the Church’s direction to baptize infants is culturally and temporally relative. It is not an eternal, infallible, necessary truth, but rather based on the zeitgeist or custom of a particular time and place. It just so happened to get enshrined into conciliar statements. Is that not what you mean? I always thought that the Church called for the baptism of infants in order to prevent them from eternal doom in case they died. Are you saying, it is basically just a community custom, like the kind of vestments priests wear, or local saint festivals? But then, how can we distinguish eternal, unchanging, necessary truth from custom? Maybe “gay-marriage” is OK right? Maybe “natural marriage” “has everything to do with the particular time and social environment?”

The Catholic Church was founded by God.

In your opinion. According to your faith-based belief. Or not? Do you have some proof?

As we are guided in our personal quest by the Holy Spirit, so too is the Church, in bringing us together to join in prayer, the sacraments, the mass and in contemplation of His holy word in scripture that represents the historical dialogue between God and man. The church has proven to me, a sinner, to be a source of strength and faith in my journey, one among many, to God.

OK so are you saying you have the proof I ask for, but it is incommunicable? I can accept that.

I think your point about the Church and baptism was addressed by others in earlier posts. You want to keep repeating the same point; I have no interest in doing likewise.

OK that is fine, this is a totally voluntary discussion of course.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Further, there are many ways to show that the existence of an eternal hell is not necessary for free will, justice, or any of the other rationalizations usually given.

I’d be curious to hear how you prove that the existence of hell is not necessary for free will.

I suppose that the existence of hell is necessary because God makes clear that actions have consequences. Only a fool believes otherwise.

What consequence other than hell would you suggest that make the case that actions have consequences, and eternal consequences at that?

Eternal annihilation of the soul rather than eternal hell?

Why would that be a consequence that anyone would need to fear?

The opposite of heaven is not annihilation. It is hell. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

 

[fhansen]

You can’t tell me about the souls in hell, but you’re pretty sure they consider their lives to be “worth it?” I’m not sure people who commit suicide prefer existence. Their actions seem to reveal otherwise! That seems to be the most straightforward interpretation of the act, is it not?

No, its a desperate act for someone under duress. And I can’t tell you what the souls in hell think-any more than *you *can-I can only go by what they have done-chosen to exist apart from God. Maybe that makes them happier relatively speaking, for all we know.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . This wouldn’t be getting under your skin if it didn’t bear any relation to your hidden assumptions. . . .I sense a seething rage toward “uncle Willie” here. Is that unfounded? Is uncle Willie so evil that he deserves to be tortured in fire forever with no hope of either redemption or annihilation? If he is, how can it be said that his life was “worth living?” Are many people similarly evil? Do only those kinds of people lead lives that aren’t worth living? Are they just cesspools to you? Why would God have created them in the first place then? That seems rather cruel. Why infinitely sustain those whom he has always known would be “not worth it?” Or, is he just using them, like expendable tools? Except, instead of expending them…he punishes them forever? Are they “worth it” to the extent that they are useful tools? . . . Ok, so what you are saying is that the Church’s direction to baptize infants is culturally and temporally relative. It is not an eternal, infallible, necessary truth, but rather based on the zeitgeist or custom of a particular time and place. It just so happened to get enshrined into conciliar statements. Is that not what you mean? I always thought that the Church called for the baptism of infants in order to prevent them from eternal doom in case they died. Are you saying, it is basically just a community custom, like the kind of vestments priests wear, or local saint festivals? But then, how can we distinguish eternal, unchanging, necessary truth from custom? Maybe “gay-marriage” is OK right? Maybe “natural marriage” “has everything to do with the particular time and social environment?” . . .

It’s hard to pick up from all the jabber, what might be worthy of a response. Nothing actually. You project your misunderstanding and rage onto others, seeing what is not there. You have an idea of hell that is childish and inconsistent with the reality of sin. Your questions reflect your own confusion rather than open the mysteries of existence. My assumptions are pretty clear and based on what is revealed in scripture as interpreted by the church. You are the one who has strayed, admittedly forming your own stated or hidden assumptions of what is truth.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

It’s hard to pick up from all the jabber, what might be worthy of a response. Nothing actually. You project your misunderstanding and rage onto others, seeing what is not there. You have an idea of hell that is childish and inconsistent with the reality of sin. Your questions reflect your own confusion rather than open the mysteries of existence. My assumptions are pretty clear and based on what is revealed in scripture as interpreted by the church. You are the one who has strayed, admittedly forming your own stated or hidden assumptions of what is truth.

I eagerly welcome a cogent answer to any of my questions. Though they seem to you unworthy of your wisdom, many could benefit from your insight. Let’s increase our understanding together, I’m sure there are things you can learn, even from one you believe to be profoundly ignorant.