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

[Spock]

We were created for God and our hearts are restless until we are in Him.

Does that “we” include me? My heart experienced 3 nice heart attacks… is that what you are referring to? Because I can assure you, my heart is not “restless” in this existence. As I said before, I would be delighted to learn that there is a good, loving, caring God out there, I would be happy to meet my deceased parents again. But there is no evidence of that. Too bad, so sad.

You aren’t in the dark at all, really.

I wish you would not try to make statements about my internal thoughts. If I say that I need clear and unambiguous guidelines, then that is exactly what I need. If I say that I do not find the existing guidelines sufficient, then that is the case. If I say that I am in the dark, please do not contradict me. Of course, if you have actual proof, if you can read my subconscious, and detect that I am lying through my teeth then you are most welcome to point out my lies… but somehow I doubt it.

And you don’t need a ‘list’ because let’s face it, people today can ‘read’ a nice stark "thou shalt not kill’ and unblinkingly go out and abort their child because, "it isn’t REALLY killing’. “It’s not REALLY a child.” “It’s not like I enjoy it but I’m being FORCED into it.” So having a list like the 10 commandments doesn’t really stop people who are determined to ‘read’ an exception to the rules for them.

Hmmm… so now those 10 commandments are the exclusive list of “do’s” and “don’t’s”? Is it not a mortal sin not to go to mass any more? Or is there a different set of “mortal sins” for Catholics, and non-Catholics? What about a different set of “mortal sins” for Catholics, non-Catholic Christians, non-Christian believers, Muslims, Buddhists, pantheists, deists, wiccans, pagans and atheists? This is not a rhetorical question. If I do not believe that God exists, and thus I am unable to “love” God, did I commit a mortal sin (first commandment!), or didn’t I? I say that an unquestionable, official declaration directly from God’s mouth is the necessary condition to know what to do and what to avoid in this life to “qualify” for heaven.

But I digress. . .we have Scripture, Spock, which is God’s revealed written word. We have the Church which is guided by God to help us out. We have preachers and teachers who have studied Scripture and Sacred Tradition and give guidance.

I know that this is exactly what you believe. However, why do you think that I will accept what you said? Why do you think that I will look upon the Bible and believe that it is more than just some irrational musing of some ancient superstitious people? I wonder, are you aware that the Catholic Church is unable to convince a very sizable percentage of the Catholic believers that artificial birth control and abortion are “mortal sins”? Why do you think that the Catholic Church is any kind of authority to the non-Catholics, if it is not a “real” authority for the Catholics?

Of course, if you come into the whole thing with “I WILL NOT accept”, that’s not really very open-minded, and I’ve found that you have to be somewhat open-minded to really learn.

Nice try to put me on the defensive. But I am open-minded, though it does not mean that I will accept any kind “argument” thrown in my way. An argument needs to be grounded in facts, and it must be logical. If that will be the case, I will be happy to accommodate and ponder it. But what you did in this post, telling to me that “I am not really in the dark”, despite what I said, simply does not work.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Spock. . .

You are NOT in the dark. You can be perfectly sincere (and I am sure you are sincere) in believing that you MUST possess X or Y in order to ‘know’. . .but that does not mean that your perfectly sincere belief is accurate truth.

Many people really, sincerely believe all kinds of things which they will give perfectly logical reasons for, which turn out to be wrong. The people who believed in a flat earth 10,000 years ago used their not inconsiderable intellects on all the available facts of the time and came up with a logical reason that the earth was flat. But they were wrong.

In your case all I can tell you, and you can accept or reject it as you choose, is that even though you ‘feel’ you need to have X plus Y, and you DON’T think you have them. . .that doesn’t mean that you are accurate in either belief. You might not NEED to have X plus Y, or you might have them without being aware of it. IOW, you might THINK you have all the possible data that exists. . .but you don’t. . .or you might think that you don’t have the data but it isn’t really the data that you would need anyway. . .

Sorry to hear about the heart attacks and hope that the proper medication, life-style changes, or whatever else the cardiologists recommend, will help you to fully heal. God bless.

 

[tonyrey]

**

What I am really interested in is the concept of ‘Hell’. Hopefully when we can agree on what Hell is and the characteristics of the suffering one endures in hell, we can answer the OP.

**

A very warm welcome to the forum, Francis - not in the context of hell!

Hell is a state of self-inflicted isolation from God by those who are determined to be absolutely independent and exist for themselves without owing allegiance to any higher authority.

 

[greylorn]

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.

Here’s your answer. It is not the least bit “loverly” and you won’t like it either.

1. God is not omniscient.
2. God did not create the soul, so cannot be responsible for its choices.
3. He has more interesting things to do than be aware of our existence, much less be in love with any of us.

These answers have the advantage of being non-contradictory with one another and with the properties of human nature. They are also consistent with the general human property of low intelligence.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Here’s your answer. It is not the least bit “loverly” and you won’t like it either.

1. God is not omniscient.
2. God did not create the soul, so cannot be responsible for its choices.
3. He has more interesting things to do than be aware of our existence, much less be in love with any of us.

These answers have the advantage of being non-contradictory with one another and with the properties of human nature. They are also consistent with the general human property of low intelligence.

They have the disadvantage though of being. . .to put it bluntly . . .wrong.

 

[greylorn]

They have the disadvantage though of being. . .to put it bluntly . . .wrong.

Thank you for the thoughtful analysis.

 

[samiam1611]

They have the disadvantage though of being. . .to put it bluntly . . .wrong.

Now now, Tantum. You sound awfully sure of yourself there. Greylorn’s version of God has just as much (if not more) of a chance of being right as yours does. His is not dependent on scripture. I like that.

 

[Spock]

You are NOT in the dark. You can be perfectly sincere (and I am sure you are sincere) in believing that you MUST possess X or Y in order to ‘know’. . .but that does not mean that your perfectly sincere belief is accurate truth.

We are talking about different things. I know, and not just believe that I need the list to be certain how to behave. If there is one thing I can be certain about, it is that I “know” what I know - not just “believe” that I know. I am in the dark about what is expected from me if I wish to qualify for heaven. In my previous post I asked specific questions. Do you have any answers? Specific answers would be helpful.

 

[A_Servant]

OK, I will make an honest attempt to ignore all previous posts and give an honest answer based on my own opinion, to the original question.
First we must analyze what Hell is. Hell, in the understanding of the Church, is the state of being separate from God. Take a moment to ponder what this “state” would imply. First of all, God is the source of all good, and the source of all life. If you were to be totally cut off from that, you would be “dead” in the truest sense of the word. No happiness, joy, or anything good would dwell in or around you in this state. Secondly, hell, right now at least, is not a physical place. Hell is the state of being, into which those who’ve led a life of evil pass after death. And finally, Hell is the ultimate failure, to be separate from God eternally is to eternally fail in what we were created for…not to serve God, not to worship God, but to unite with the Divine Life of God through a communion of Love, this is what we were created for, and this is our aim.
Second we must understand the intentions of God (no small undertaking). In deed, we may never know completely the intentions of God according to his omniscience, all we know is what has been revealed to us, and what can be illuminated by right reason. Therefore, here is what we know: God is the Creator of the Universe, Man is the pinnacle of His Creation, God created man to share in His Life through love, and God hold’s man’s freedom of choice in very very high regard. God allows those who He knows will choose hell and not Heaven to be born, for the same reason he does not force anyone into hell or heaven; because of our freedom of choice.
Finally, there are two clearly defined purposes for God's defense of our free will. The first is of a practical nature. Since God did not create us to worship him or to serve him as certain other Abrahamic religions state, but instead created us to genuinely love Him, and He us; freedom of choice becomes a necessary component to True Love. One who is forced into a relationship will usually NEVER truly love the other in the relationship. Only relationships freely entered into by both parties are legitimate "love" relationships. If God were to take away our free will, or cause us not to be born in anticipation of our decision, He would make a true love-bond between us and Him impossible. It would be a relationship of force. The second purpose is of a judicial nature. God is just, and as such, must defend the concept of free will. Free will is the backbone of all Enlightened Legal systems. A serious offense against someone's freedom (rape, murder, stealing, etc.) constitutes a crime in our society. Why is freedom of choice important to our society and important to God? Because free will is the basic foundation of human dignity. God did not make us to be slaves....but to be one with Him forever through Love.

 

[benedictus2]

I am aware of this teaching, but I see no reason to accept it. It cannot be observed nor measured. You call it a “fact”, I call it an unsupported hypothesis.

The movement through the Solar System can be observed and measured. This movement is really a fact, not just a hypothesis.

But these are all unimportant. The point is we cannot and do not experience God, and therefore, for all practical purposes we are separated from God, and Tantum ergo defined “hell” as the separation from God.

Since we posit that God is super natural, it stands to reason that the natural is inadequate at explaining His existence.

 

[benedictus2]

Here’s your answer. It is not the least bit “loverly” and you won’t like it either.

1. God is not omniscient.

How do you know? Since according to you, you have neither seen nor met Him, how do you know he is not so?

1. God did not create the soul, so cannot be responsible for its choices.

Again, how do you know that for a fact?

1. He has more interesting things to do than be aware of our existence, much less be in love with any of us.

Again, how do you know that for a fact? On one side you insist on empirical evidence and yet here you are claiming quite a few things about God but have not emperical evidence.

These answers have the advantage of being non-contradictory with one another and with the properties of human nature. They are also consistent with the general human property of low intelligence.

Actually not. The none intelligence was displayed on your above reply.

By saying that God is not this and not that, you are affirming that there is such a thing as God only he is not this and not that. But you have no proof for these statements. Does that sound like a non-human property of high intelligence to you?

 

[benedictus2]

Now now, Tantum. You sound awfully sure of yourself there. Greylorn’s version of God has just as much (if not more) of a chance of being right as yours does. His is not dependent on scripture. I like that.

And I suppose that you “like that” give that point much more validity.
Aaah, the religion of Samiamism. There’s over a billion of such religion and it is growing by the minute.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

A person would almost have to be non-conscious to believe that God is like some kind of perfect grand-daddy, waiting to roll the carpet out with ginger ale and cookies for the good little self acclaimed sinning yet exalted one. Heres a couple of things which separate the nuts from the thinkers…

1. People who imagine little voices and think they are something unique and special are creating an imaginary world in order to cope. Its ok, but it is only your world, deceiving self.
2. People who think that…“God thinks”, are basically imagining a God who needs to think.
   Thinking is a requirement for choice. Choice is a viable option for failure. If you think that
   God …thinks, then God can make mistakes.You’ve logically missed the target.
3. People who think that God knows or negotiates negativity are suggesting that God would expose himself to that which contradicts the properties of God.

There are so many understandings which I find entirely pre-historic in the common man that I can hardly deal with the non-conscious like approach…I’m really starting to not wonder, but “know” I am indeed of a distinct higher species relative to the greater majority.All life evolves. Evolution is part of every single second of the day. Its a drag.

 

[greylorn]

How do you know? Since according to you, you have neither seen nor met Him, how do you know he is not so?

Again, how do you know that for a fact?

Again, how do you know that for a fact? On one side you insist on empirical evidence and yet here you are claiming quite a few things about God but have not emperical evidence.

Actually not. The none intelligence was displayed on your above reply.

By saying that God is not this and not that, you are affirming that there is such a thing as God only he is not this and not that. But you have no proof for these statements. Does that sound like a non-human property of high intelligence to you?

You are clearly a rigid dogmatist, one who has accepted words written by men, but declared by men to be the absolute word of the Creator, as absolute truth. No, I don’t “know that for a fact.” As the great philosopher Descartes observed, the only fact we can be certain of is the existence of our own conscious mind. Everything else is an extrapolation.

While I don’t know for a fact that you are a dogmatist, someone who prefers not to think for himself in matters of religious belief, it seems obvious. Like the neighbor’s duck. It’s white, has webbed feet, loves to swim, and quacks. So the poor neighbor and I may be deluded, and the animal may be a donkey. We are entitled to our opinions.

Now I do not think that you have much of a basis, being a dogmatist, for complaining that someone’s statements are not known for certain to be factual. In case you’d overlooked the simple fact, We are posting on a “philosophy” forum, not a physics and engineering blog, or even a TV quiz show. I was expressing ideas. Do you even know what an “idea” is?

If one was to waste the time inquiring about your personal beliefs, I’m sure one would find them based on nothing but faith— faith in some words from the Bible, faith in the beliefs of theologians. I’m sure that like all religionists, you’ve been taught to accept many illogical ideas (e.g. Three Gods are One God) on faith. That’s all okay. But do you have the slightest idea why you are exhorted to have faith?

It is because there is no evidence for your beliefs. Without faith, your beliefs will blow away in a breeze.

You are correct that I’ve not seen God. He is the same God you have not seen. The difference is that I’ve studied some aspects of his Creation, taken hard science courses, squinted into microscopes and peered through large telescopes, to get some small measure of the character of His creation. Then I’ve thought about things, and how they might have been accomplished. I’ve wondered about the relationship between the Creator and dark energy, and why He chose to quantize the subatomic universe.

The basis for all of my ideas is evidential. I believe in a Creator because I’ve studied the alternatives (e.g. Buddhism, Darwinism) and find them incapable of explaining the simplest physics principles. The Bible was written by dreadfully ignorant men. Current Christian theology was devised by men who thought that the flat earth was at the center of the universe, and that heavy objects fall faster than light ones.

Re: the nature of God, I follow logical principles to determine what properties a Creator must have in order to create a universe and its observed components. Logic is good at determining what cannot work, including concepts such as omnipotence and omniscience. (My book which, you won’t read, details the logic.) Moreover, such properties are unnecessary to creation.

It is becoming increasingly difficult for thoughtful, educated individuals to believe in the traditional religious ideas of God, and His alleged purpose in creation. You’ve probably not noticed. I’m trying to interest a few open-minded individuals in the idea of re-evaluating some of these concepts, with the goal of ending up with an understanding of the Creator which is perfectly consistent with all available evidence, from the mysterious expansion of our enormous universe to the operation of living cells.

Nothing I write is intended for intellectual fossils.

 

[greylorn]

And I suppose that you “like that” give that point much more validity.
Aaah, the religion of Samiamism. There’s over a billion of such religion and it is growing by the minute.

Why are you so upset at the appearance of someone else on the philosophy forum who is willing to think and evaluate ideas without your approval?

Your denigration of Sam is decidedly un-Christ-like, but similar to the authoritarian indoctrination styles of communists, Nazis, Fascists, and their dogmatic, self-righteous ilk.

Quick to condemn, slow to think, what manner of Christian are you?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I notice you didn’t really answer the question so much as insulted the questioner (I think that’s called an ad hominem) by claiming that it was obvious, by him.her daring to question how you could ‘know’ what you claimed, that he/ she MUST be a ‘rigid dogmatist’. And then of course you played the “you’re acting so mean and nasty, how can such a horrible person claim to be a Christian, tsk, tsk, now everybody, that proves this person must be wrong and I** Greylorn must be right because I"M not mean and nasty like this pharisee.** . .(woops)”

So mind explaining to us in words of one syllable to reach our inferior minds and our ‘rigid dogmatism’ how the Catholic who has accepted, on careful study, Catholic teachings, differs from the "Greylorn’ who states completely different teachings. . .

I mean, Greylorn, where is the proof that WE got sucked into 'words of just men" but **you **somehow magically were granted the real true words of God himself?

 

[Qoeleth]

Does that “we” include me? My heart experienced 3 nice heart attacks… is that what you are referring to? Because I can assure you, my heart is not “restless” in this existence. As I said before, I would be delighted to learn that there is a good, loving, caring God out there, I would be happy to meet my deceased parents again. But there is no evidence of that. Too bad, so sad.

I wish you would not try to make statements about my internal thoughts. If I say that I need clear and unambiguous guidelines, then that is exactly what I need. If I say that I do not find the existing guidelines sufficient, then that is the case. If I say that I am in the dark, please do not contradict me. Of course, if you have actual proof, if you can read my subconscious, and detect that I am lying through my teeth then you are most welcome to point out my lies… but somehow I doubt it.

Nice try to put me on the defensive. But I am open-minded, though it does not mean that I will accept any kind “argument” thrown in my way. An argument needs to be grounded in facts, and it must be logical. If that will be the case, I will be happy to accommodate and ponder it. But what you did in this post, telling to me that “I am not really in the dark”, despite what I said, simply does not work.

Congratulations on your honesty. In fact, St. John of the Cross describes the ''dark nights" in which we feel the absence of God, the ineffectiveness of prayers. The darkness of this experience is not one goes through, but it is a higher level of contact with God. Similarly, Eckhart and Silenius both talking about the need of going beyond “God”. Belief is not the acceptance of propositions about God- that is just ‘religion’. “Whatever we can say about God is false”- Meister Ekchart. Rather belief in God is simply an awareness of the emptiness that is at the heart of the human soul.

You say you are in the dark. Perhaps this is how we should be in relation to God.

 

[greylorn]

I notice you didn’t really answer the question so much as insulted the questioner (I think that’s called an ad hominem) by claiming that it was obvious, by him.her daring to question how you could ‘know’ what you claimed, that he/ she MUST be a ‘rigid dogmatist’. And then of course you played the “you’re acting so mean and nasty, how can such a horrible person claim to be a Christian, tsk, tsk, now everybody, that proves this person must be wrong and I** Greylorn must be right because I"M not mean and nasty like this pharisee.** . .(woops)”

So mind explaining to us in words of one syllable to reach our inferior minds and our ‘rigid dogmatism’ how the Catholic who has accepted, on careful study, Catholic teachings, differs from the "Greylorn’ who states completely different teachings. . .

I mean, Greylorn, where is the proof that WE got sucked into 'words of just men" but **you **somehow magically were granted the real true words of God himself?

The only thing certain about the Bible, and other religious scriptures, is that they were written by men. Even you ought to be able to figure out that much.

The only information absolutely certain to have been written by the Creator of the universe is the universe itself, and its components, from stars to cells. That’s the source of my ideas.

It’s probably too much to ask of you to undertake even a superficial study of mathematics and physics. So why don’t you just go ahead and explain how the Bible gives you all the information you need? Be my guest. Get yourself into another twit or throw another tantrum, whatever keeps you off the streets the longest.

 

[meltzerboy]

Tantum wishes to qualify that Hell is ETERNAL separation from God. But if we reject God by sinning mortally, we have put ourselves on the ‘road’ to that eternal separation unless we repent.

Would the eternal separation from G-d mean the experience is always felt in the present rather than a temporally infinite experience of separation from G-d? In other words, do we experience either the presence or absence of G-d in the way G-d always experiences the present situation, i.e. outside of time?

 

[meltzerboy]

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.

One might also ask why G-d has created us at all, even those of us who will spend eternity in Heaven. The usual answer is G-d is perfect and self-sufficient so it must be because of G-d’s love. Yet life itself contains pain as well as pleasure; suffering as well as joy and happiness; fear, doubt, and despair as well as achievement, courage, and transcendence. It is presumed by many that the totality of the experience is, on balance, worth it for the opportunity to feel the love and presence of G-d and reciprocate that love toward both G-d and His creation, despite the hardships we may encounter along the way. Some believe also that G-d fortifies us by means of free will so that we are able to experience the pride of our own successes and, as well, the disappointment of our failures, in addition to the decisions made to reach our goals. Others have stated that free will also makes our relationship with G-d so much stronger and truer by affording us the choice to love Him and our fellow Man. Otherwise, G-d could have spared us the trouble by creating us in a heavenly state like the angels rather than having us pass through this imperfect earthly life before entering Heaven. The gift of life granted to us, the life process itself is holy and sanctified by G-d as much as the end result. As the saying goes “Better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.” None of us can answer your question completely, but I would ask another question: if you knew what G-d knows about the course of your earthly life and its ultimate destiny, even if not to your liking, would you have still chosen to be born?