Why did God create me if he knew I would spend an eternity in hell?

[PRmerger]

FYI this is a philosophy section, not a dogma discussion group.

'Tis true, this.

However, all philosophical truth is Catholic truth, no?

Incidentally, your comment makes me wonder whether you object to people on a physics forum proclaiming mathematical truths? Do you say, “Sir, 2+2 =4 is a mathematical construct. Do you not know we are discussing physics?” (No need to respond. Just a rhetorical.)

Philosophy is about searching for truth, not asserting that you’ve found it.

Heh. This seems to be a dogmatic assertion by one who claims to eschew dogma.

Since you are already certain that you have the truth, why are you posting here? My guess is, just to interfere with others, dog-in-the-manger style. .

My reasons for posting here are varied and, frankly, none of your business. We members are free to post in any forum, for any reason (except, of course, for the desire to proselytize and advertise), and need not provide any* apologia* for our visit to a particular forum.

However, as I’m feeling charitable today I will offer you this: I am here, responding in particular to your posts, because I like you.

And I sense a deep despondency in your posts that makes me want to cry. I want to offer you hope. And the truth that will set you free from whatever demons you are battling.

 

[Nimeniton]

It appears that at least 2 readers on this thread have taken St. Augustine’s quote to mean: we are commanded to be intellectual goobers.

Perhaps the fault is with my exposition of this quote.

Thus I will clarify: Si comprehendis, non est Deus ought not be interpreted as a license to density.

I recommend reading the great theologians of Catholicity: Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, Teresa of Avila, Edith Stein…to see how an understanding of God can be apprehended, but not comprehended.

Hi Merger

I had to look up the word “goober” being unaware of that Americanism. What did I say that made you think I was interpreting Augustine as giving “a license to density”?
I certainly did not think that St Augustine was commanding anything by the phrase Si comprehendis, non est Deus. The phrase is a dictum , not an imperative. Also I implied that his position is logically possible (well even factually possible) but I simply confessed to a certain cynicism based on my own experience.

I tried to find the original source on line but had no luck, though I did find some of his other sermons.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi Merger

I had to look up the word “goober” being unaware of that Americanism.

It’s a great word, isn’t it? You almost immediately know what it means, even if unfamiliar, simply based on the sound.

What did I say that made you think I was interpreting Augustine as giving “a license to density”?
I certainly did not think that St Augustine was commanding anything by the phrase Si comprehendis, non est Deus. The phrase is a dictum , not an imperative.

My bad. Dictum, not command.

Also I implied that his position is logically possible (well even factually possible) but I simply confessed to a certain cynicism based on my own experience.

No doubt that your Buddhist experience would produce a great degree of cynicism.

However, here’s another Latin phrase for you:

Abusus non tollit usum.

Abuse does not take away it use.

That a man claiming to be God was actually confirmed in his sin ought not be a reason to dismiss the truth regarding God’s inscrutable ways.

And I leave you today with one final Latin dictum (not imperative), or maybe it’s an aphorism, or phrase or comment, and one English mantra/adage/principle (Fill in the blank with whatever noun you prefer. )

• *Fides quaerens intellectum * -(St. Anselm) is the guiding principle for all theological inquiry.
• 2 errors: to exclude reason and to exclude all but reason–Pascal.

 

[Nimeniton]

My niece was born with a huge growth on her cheek. The doctor recommended that they operate on her while very young ( I think before she was one year old) so that there will not be any scars left when she grows up.

The first thing that they did for the operation was to strap her into a strait jacket which absolutely terrified her. Her anguished cries truly broke her parents’ heart. She turned to her father with fearful and grief stricken eyes begging to be released from the straps but of course her father could not do it. The operation was successful but when she woke up you can tell that she “hated” her father. Every time he came near she tried to move away and she would not let him hold her. In her little heart, she must have felt betrayed and abandoned. On top of that she would have been in pain for some time after the operation. So her little heart and little head must have struggled to make sense of this suffering.

She is now a beautiful young woman with beautiful unblemished skin and is very thankful that what needed to be done was done.

It must have been a traumatic experience, poor child.

I think it is the same with the seemingly senseless suffering in this world. God continues to create and any construction site will tell you that there is always chaos before the work is complete even more so when some construction workers fail to follow the plan of the Engineer and Architect.

I understand the analogy but do not see the necessity of a Perfect being and presumably perfect communicator needing to create chaos in order for us to gain some untold benefit i.e character building or a test etc

I think everyone is agreed that Christ is a good person. So at the very least we all concede that He is a wise and good person.

However, conceding that and not accepting His claim is not quite logical because if He is not who He claims He is, then He is neither good nor wise. At the very least He is probably demented at worst He is a charlatan and thus an out and out liar. So Christ always forces a choice – either we accept that He is who He claims He is or He is not what we believe Him to be a good and wise but otherwise ordinary human being.

Your are referring to C.S. Lewis’ trilemma: “Christ either deceived mankind by conscious fraud, or He was Himself deluded and self-deceived, or He was Divine. There is no getting out of this trilemma. It is inexorable.”

Of course it depends in what sense Lewis is using the word deluded. A person can be deluded in certain matters but not necessarily insane. Lots of people believe in re-incarnation. According to the Catholic church that is a false belief. However, I do not think anybody would suggest that they are all demented. I am sure most of them are quite capable of getting on with their lives in a reasonably sane manner.

C. S. Lewis does not consider other possibilities such as a.Christ never made the claims attributed to him or even that b. Christ is a composite figure as some have suggested. So I think Lewis is incorrect to say that he has presented a an inexorable trilemma.

 

[PRmerger]

I understand the analogy but do not see the necessity of a Perfect being and presumably perfect communicator needing to create chaos in order for us to gain some untold benefit i.e character building or a test etc

Let’s continue b2’s apposite analogy, in response to your comment above.

You say you do not “see” the necessity of the above. Perhaps. All explanations that have been proferred to you about reconciling the Problem of Evil and a loving God fail to convince.

But do you think there’s any explanation that we parents/aunts/uncles could have given to this little one about the necessity of the pain and suffering she endured? In her little, finite mind*** no explanation ***will convince her of the need for this.

We are merely babes–not even, if one wants to quantify the finite human mind and compare it to the Infinite Mind–and, even if God were to provide some sort of rationale to explain why He permits suffering would fail. We simply are incapable of understanding.

Just as b2’s 1 yr old niece would not understand.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course it depends in what sense Lewis is using the word deluded. A person can be deluded in certain matters but not necessarily insane. Lots of people believe in re-incarnation. According to the Catholic church that is a false belief. However, I do not think anybody would suggest that they are all demented. I am sure most of them are quite capable of getting on with their lives in a reasonably sane manner.

Are you really positing that Jesus was deluded into thinking he was God? What evidence do you have that this Jesus was a lunatic? Do not even the other great religions ascribe a certain holiness and wisdom to the historical Jesus, even if they deny his divinity?

Can you provide any sources with eyewitnesses testifying to his lunacy?

C. S. Lewis does not consider other possibilities such as a.Christ never made the claims attributed to him or even that b. Christ is a composite figure as some have suggested. So I think Lewis is incorrect to say that he has presented a an inexorable trilemma.

So if he never made these claims, who did? And for what reason?

 

[perro_sarnoso]

Lets say that I reject God and choose to spend an eternity in hell. He knew I would make this choice, and yet he still made me.

If he loved me so much, why would he make me knowing that I would spend an eternity away from him?

Articles on omniscience, predestination, or this exact topic would be loverly.

I’m sure this dead horse has been beaten beyond recognition. Be that as it may.

God would be supporting abortion if, in knowing that you’d be lost, He decided he was not going to create you.

That’s precisely the horrible and erroneous decision women make when they choose to abort a baby.

To re-phrase your question: Why didn’t God abort me if He knew I would go to hell?

For the same reasons that abortion is a horrible sin.

You are passing the buck perspective:

God calls out to Adam in the garden of eden and Adam hides because he has done something wrong.
First thing Adam does is - pass the buck: He first blames God for giving him the woman who gave him the forbidden fruit. Eve gave me of the forbidden fruit…
Then Eve passes the buck - The serpent told me I surely wouldn’t die.

You are blaming God for your seemingly eventual passage into hell: I’m going to hell because you created me and you knew I would end up in hell.

Take responsibility for your own actions and decisions. Stop trying to pass the buck. God’s grace pours down on everyone like rain…some choose to hide from this rain.

 

[Nimeniton]

Are you really positing that Jesus was deluded into thinking he was God?

No. You wrote the above before you read all my reply, didn’t you?

So if he never made these claims, who did? And for what reason?

If you look at Christendom you will see that the “words of Jesus” are interpreted in many and even contradictory ways. There are Christians who argue that Jesus never taught an eternal hell. They can quote scripture and verse to that effect. Even in the early days there were many gospels that claimed to quote what Jesus had said though not all have been accepted as scripture. In the early centuries there were many debates on the nature of Christ, from questioning his divinity to questioning his humanity.

So in answer to your question, the claims are made by Christians dependent on their interpretation of books they believe to be authorative that state what Jesus is supposed to have said.

But to go back to C S Lewis, he claimed there were only three options. He presents you with an either or scenario. So if you dismiss the options that Jesus was deluded or a charlatan then you have to accept the third that he was indeed God. But if there are more than three options, then one is not logically forced to conclude that.

So I am questioning Lewis’s logic. I am not positing any position. Just pointing out that Lewis has made the logical fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.

 

[Nimeniton]

I’m sure this dead horse has been beaten beyond recognition. Be that as it may.

God would be supporting abortion if, in knowing that you’d be lost, He decided he was not going to create you.

If he loved me so much, why would he make me knowing that I would spend an eternity away from him? Re Peter 167

There is a problem with your line of logic. You are assuming that non creation is equal to abortion. If I keep a female dog away from male dogs when she is in heat, I am indeed stopping puppies from being born but I am hardly committing an abortion. First the puppies have to be conceived before an abortion can be carried out. The same is true for babies. Abortion is killing because it kills an existent being and not because it kills a non existent being.

Or take another example. One hopes ones daughters will remain virgins at least until they are old enough to be mature mothers. Now the earliest recorded age to be a mother was just under 6 when Lina Medina gave birth to a son. Now if we prevent our young daughters from getting pregnant and encourage them to remain virgins when they are capable of producing children. are we then practicing abortion? Just think how many children were prevented from being conceived between the ages of 10 and 18 alone. That is millions upon millions of aborted never conceived babies.

Further the Bible makes it clear that it is better not to be born in certain circumstances:
But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.” Matthew 26:24 and Mark 14:21. I leave it to your imagination what awaited Judas!

So I think you will need to find another answer to Peter’s question.

 

[PRmerger]

No. You wrote the above before you read all my reply, didn’t you?

No. I read the entire thing. I guess I don’t understand what you’re positing. In what sense are you proposing that Jesus could have proclaimed to be God yet not be?

If you look at Christendom you will see that the “words of Jesus” are interpreted in many and even contradictory ways. There are Christians who argue that Jesus never taught an eternal hell. They can quote scripture and verse to that effect. Even in the early days there were many gospels that claimed to quote what Jesus had said though not all have been accepted as scripture. In the early centuries there were many debates on the nature of Christ, from questioning his divinity to questioning his humanity.

So in answer to your question, the claims are made by Christians dependent on their interpretation of books they believe to be authorative that state what Jesus is supposed to have said.

Okay. So there were some Christians who misinterpreted Jesus’ words and thought he was saying he was divine when he wasn’t actually saying this?

Is that your position? That this is a viable alternative to the fact that Jesus wasn’t actually divine, but that his disciples may have merely gotten it so wrong?

But to go back to C S Lewis, he claimed there were only three options. He presents you with an either or scenario. So if you dismiss the options that Jesus was deluded or a charlatan then you have to accept the third that he was indeed God. But if there are more than three options, then one is not logically forced to conclude that.

So I am questioning Lewis’s logic. I am not positing any position. Just pointing out that Lewis has made the logical fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.

I get that. But it’s like you’re a detective and you’re saying to another detective, “You say the thief* can only be Person A, B or C. Well, I’m offering this: what about the butler?” Now, when the other detective says, “Why do you say this?” it would be odd for you to say, “I’m not saying he did it. I’m just saying it’s a possibility” but then offer no further argument as to why you’re positing that the butler may be a suspect.

You have to offer arguments as to why you think Jesus, a good teacher by all accounts, was so completely unable to convey a very basic message: I am NOT God but only pointing the way to him.

*(And please, please, please do not go to “Wow, I can’t believe you’re comparing Jesus to a thief.” I have more confidence in your ability to understand analogies than that!)

 

[PRmerger]

So I am questioning Lewis’s logic. I am not positing any position. Just pointing out that Lewis has made the logical fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.

Actually, this was not *Lewis’ logic but an ancient argument offered by the ECFs.
*
Aut Deus aut Homo Malus.


PR-“your Latin-phase lover of late” merger.

 

[DazedConfused]

Maybe by my 3rd post I will figure out how to copy someone’s else’s comment into my reply (advice appreciated).

I have been noodling the topic of omniscience since my initial post. In both earlier comments in the thread, as well as a direct response to my post of an omniscient creator knowing everything (including if we will end up in hell), a resolution of this apparent conflict has come to some through an alternative perspective of time. Specifically, it was mentioned that God’s experience of time is different that our linear approach, God is “outside time”, and therefore experiences past, present, and future simultaneously. Another poster took this idea further by commenting that God also experiences all potential forks in the road simultaneously as well. This idea provides for God to experience infinite outcomes and possibilities, and creates a framework “within the forks” for choice and free will to exist.

I find this idea very interesting, and appreciate a philosophical answer to the OP’s philosophical question. The above could also be used to further comment that God experiences the multiverse and relate to the theories of string theory. If matter can exist in infinite alternate universes, then perhaps in one I am a true believer and thus will reach heaven!

While the above is very interesting, the skeptic in me still has unresolved concerns over the concept of an omniscient creator coupled with eternal damnation. I view omniscience as both “unlimited knowledge” as well as “not limited” knowledge. I cannot dismiss that God has the capacity to understand our concept of linear time or that when he creates a soul the knowledge exists of where that soul would will end up. I would consider a true omniscient creator as able to perceive all, know all, and understand all. Further, even if we are to disagree about the knowledge of damnation at creation, I would at least assume that God would perceive of the billions in death who don’t end up in heaven. Billions of good people, infants, children, mentally challenged, remote villagers never hearing the word, and so forth. To have them enter eternal pain and suffering is not just, kind, or a system you would expect to be designed by an omniscient creator.

I am very curious to see how people in this thread reconcile their own belief of hell and the huge percentage of people who are there eternally. Do you dismiss it as God not knowing this would be the case with caveats of omniscience and time as above? Do you take a Calvinist approach and just accept this as fact and move on? Does it bother you knowing so many of your family, friends, neighbors, and good people worldwide are destined for hell? With 7 billion people living on the planet today, is 5 or 6 billion of them headed for hell justifiable?

 

[PRmerger]

Welcome to the CAFs, DC!

Maybe by my 3rd post I will figure out how to copy someone’s else’s comment into my reply (advice appreciated).

Bottom right of posts is an icon marked “Quote”. Hit that and the post will appear in your dialogue box.

Everything that appears between these two functions:

and / QUOTE] will appear in a text box. That is the posting to which you are responding. Your comments must be typed **outside **the

and / QUOTE] function in order to appear outside the text box.

 

[Candide_West]

Originally Posted by perro sarnoso
I’m sure this dead horse has been beaten beyond recognition. Be that as it may.

God would be supporting abortion if, in knowing that you’d be lost, He decided he was not going to create you.

*There is a problem with your line of logic. You are assuming that non creation is equal to abortion. *

Very true Nimeniton, in addition if you used the logic that non-creation equals abortion then every time a person is created, all the infinitude of people who were not created at that point had been aborted.

Consider for the moment if God could make person A or person B. Person A destined for hell and Person B destined for heaven. If God created Person A then by the above logic he had also “aborted” person B. So he had aborted the life of a person destined for heaven in preference of someone destined for hell.

All in all I think the position that non-creation equals abortion is pretty untenable.

 

[PRmerger]

I am very curious to see how people in this thread reconcile their own belief of hell and the **huge percentage of people who are there eternally. ** Do you dismiss it as God not knowing this would be the case with caveats of omniscience and time as above? Do you take a Calvinist approach and just accept this as fact and move on? Does it bother you knowing so many of your family, friends, neighbors, and good people worldwide are destined for hell? With 7 billion people living on the planet today, is 5 or 6 billion of them headed for hell justifiable?

Who is it that has told you that there is a “huge percentage” of people in hell?

While the way is indeed narrow according to Christ, it is also true that we have not been given the demographics of hell and none of us knows who’s there, or that there’s a “huge percentage” of folks down there.

 

[DazedConfused]

Who is it that has told you that there is a “huge percentage” of people in hell?

While the way is indeed narrow according to Christ, it is also true that we have not been given the demographics of hell and none of us knows who’s there, or that there’s a “huge percentage” of folks down there.

Thanks for the tip PR on copying quotes into a thread!

When I say huge percentage going to hell, I am commenting on my understanding of salvation, and that it requires at least belief in John 3:16 that Jesus is the son of God and belief in him provides for eternal life.

I would consider those that truly believe the above to be one of the 2 billion living today who identify themselves as Christians. Of those 2 billion, 1 billion are Catholic. My limited understanding of Catholicism is that are additional requirements beyond just belief in John 3:16 to receive salvation.

Out of 7 billion people living today, 2 billion Christians would mean that 71% don’t go to heaven. If we take the additional requirements and only Catholics receive salvation, then 86% don’t go to heaven.

In the churches I was raised in (Methodist and Baptist) if you don’t go to heaven you go to hell. I would love to aim for Purgatory but I understand that it is limited to Catholics as well?

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks for the tip PR on copying quotes into a thread!

When I say huge percentage going to hell, I am commenting on my understanding of salvation, and that it requires at least belief in John 3:16 that Jesus is the son of God and belief in him provides for eternal life.

Perhaps this is the understanding that you grew up with, but that only Christians can enter heaven is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

From the Catechism: The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.”

One need not have an belief in the 2nd Person of the Trinity, but may have embraced the Eternal Logos, Jesus who is the Alpha and the Omega, without explicitly professing a belief in Christ and may yet enter heaven.

In the churches I was raised in (Methodist and Baptist) if you don’t go to heaven you go to hell. I would love to aim for Purgatory but I understand that it is limited to Catholics as well?

No, Purgatory is not limited to only Catholics. However, once you are in Purgatory you become Catholic.

 

[DazedConfused]

Perhaps this is the understanding that you grew up with, but that only Christians can enter heaven is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

No, Purgatory is not limited to only Catholics. However, once you are in Purgatory you become Catholic.

Thanks you for your response PR. There is hope after all!

After years of being involved at multiple levels of engagement within the Methodist, Baptist, and evangelical teachings it became impossible to ignore the message of Jesus is the one way and the only way. As mentioned in prior posts this led to me wondering “what does it mean if Christians’ are right”? And the unfortunate answer I kept returning to was the unfathomable number of people suffering eternally in damnation. Coupled with a creator that would have known this outcome through omniscience, I could not accept this as the ultimate creation of a perfect entity. The ease in which evil people could have deathbed conversions, and the eternity of suffering for good people who just didn’t find the evidence necessary to believe was not reconcilable to me.

My view of humanity is that we are loving, caring, and at our core imbued with an unlimited capacity for good. While there are certainly exceptions, we as a species are capable of much more love than hate and good than evil. If we are the ultimate image of our creator then I can only hope that I have this concept of hell wrong, because even in our limited capacity as humans we would never create a system designed to punish eternally.

 

[PRmerger]

If we are the ultimate image of our creator then I can only hope that I have this concept of hell wrong, because even in our limited capacity as humans we would never create a system designed to punish eternally.

DC, it is precisely because there is a loving God that there is a hell. There has to be a place for those who find God’s light so odious and hateful.

As Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft explains, “Imagine a man in hell—no, a ghost—endlessly chasing his own shadow, as the light of God shines endlessly behind him. If he would only turn and face the light, he would be saved. But he refuses to—forever.” That is hell.

He goes on to say, “Hell follows from two other doctrines: heaven and free will. If there is a heaven, there can be a not-heaven. And if there is free will, we can act on it and abuse it. Those who deny hell must also deny either heaven (as does Western secularism) or free will (as does Eastern pantheism).”

 

[DazedConfused]

it is precisely because there is a loving God that there is a hell. There has to be a place for those who find God’s light so odious and hateful.

I would agree if everyone was given ample evidence to make a true decision. I would also agree if the creator wasn’t omniscient and therefore not aware of who will end up in hell. I believe omniscience trumps free will in that the knowledge is always there (or at least it is in the realization of how many don’t end up in heaven). For something lasting eternity, I would hope that God would provide every last chance in both this lifetime and in death. If God is omniscient, he would know the level of evidence that people like me need to believe. I would certainly find that evidence in purgatory, as I would be experiencing it. If there is a choice offered then, I cannot understand an intelligent person choosing eternal damnation. Unfortunately my background leads me to believe that skeptics such as me will continue to struggle for understanding and wake up in hell. It certainly won’t be from lack of inquiry.