Why doesn't God just not create the bad people to keep them from going to hell

[Tom_Baum]

There is Justice and it is Love.
Think of yourself where you have been the victim of an injustice rather than the perpetrator.
Doesn’t the particular situation you were in demand justice.
I know several people who were the victims of government instituted torture.
One of my early memories is of the numbers tatooed on the forearm of my friend’s mother.
We read, if we do not experience it ourselves, every day of the treatment of minorities in oppressive societies.
In such cases, the institutions with the mandate to exert justice in this world, do just the opposite.
For these victims of persecution, there will never justice in this world.
Do you understand this?
It would be a lack of love to ignore their pain, their ruined lives, and the ruined lives of their families and those who love them.
It is not a matter of revenge, nor of deterrence; jusitice will be done in accordance to the will of God. This scripture tells us, includes hell.
God is love; He does not give up. If anyone is in hell, they most assuredly deserve it.
Be careful of where your wishes and fears take you. Do not lose sight of the truth.

I would hope that God, to put it mildly, is better than us.

You wrote, “God is love; He does not give up. If anyone is in hell, they most assuredly deserve it.”

I take it that you mean a hell that is for ever and ever and ever and ever and…, correct or not?

Would you say that God gave up on that person?

If you say that God did give up than where is the God that “does not give up” that you speak of?

If God didn’t give up on that person, then wouldn’t there still be a chance?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

It may be valid but it is not sound. If it was sound God would have done it. Clearly what IS is not what you propose, therefore it could not be done.

So we’ve come to the root of the matter. We don’t know why God creates hell-bound people. If that lack of knowledge seems to have troubling implications for what we want to believe about God, then we simply assert that there must be some extenuating circumstances to explain why God did things the way we think he did. That’s fine and all, but it is yet another thing we have to have faith in. In other words, it is not adequate to simply have faith that God exists, we also have to take God’s goodness and benevolence on faith.

The problem is that God and eternity are too dynamic to be reduced to mathematical formulas or diagrams. Thus your understanding will always fall short because you cannot move past the need to measure God according to the rule with which you have to measure Him.

That must be a handy escape hatch. If you are ever presented with a well defined description of how God might behave and that description has troubling implications, you have only to pull the “we can’t really understand God” lever.

I perceive that religious people find it necessary to keep their “understanding” of God fuzzy and imprecise so that they can have all their good interpretations of God while preventing anyone from drawing any troubling conclusions.

 

[Amandil]

So we’ve come to the root of the matter. We don’t know why God creates hell-bound people.

Simply restating things which have already been refuted as if you’ve proven them is a nice bit of sophistry.

If that lack of knowledge seems to have troubling implications for what we want to believe about God, then we simply assert that there must be some extenuating circumstances to explain why God did things the way we think he did. That’s fine and all, but it is yet another thing we have to have faith in. In other words, it is not adequate to simply have faith that God exists, we also have to take God’s goodness and benevolence on faith.

Non-sequitur.

That must be a handy escape hatch. If you are ever presented with a well defined description of how God might behave and that description has troubling implications, you have only to pull the “we can’t really understand God” lever.

Not nearly as convenient as committing one fallacious argument after another and then pretending that you have made some profound point and claim victory.

I perceive that religious people find it necessary to keep their “understanding” of God fuzzy and imprecise so that they can have all their good interpretations of God while preventing anyone from drawing any troubling conclusions.

It’s good that you said “perceive”. In any case it’s another example of you arguing in a circle. You’re like the person walking around everywhere looking for their glasses while not realizing that they are on your head. When someone says, they’re right there, pointing at your head, you keep asking “where?”

 

[oldcelt]

So we’ve come to the root of the matter. We don’t know why God creates hell-bound people. If that lack of knowledge seems to have troubling implications for what we want to believe about God, then we simply assert that there must be some extenuating circumstances to explain why God did things the way we think he did. That’s fine and all, but it is yet another thing we have to have faith in. In other words, it is not adequate to simply have faith that God exists, we also have to take God’s goodness and benevolence on faith.

That must be a handy escape hatch. If you are ever presented with a well defined description of how God might behave and that description has troubling implications, you have only to pull the “we can’t really understand God” lever.

I perceive that religious people find it necessary to keep their “understanding” of God fuzzy and imprecise so that they can have all their good interpretations of God while preventing anyone from drawing any troubling conclusions.

Oh yes…those who can prove nothing always fall back on such things, rather than simply admitting that they have no proof…only their belief. Of course, some will resort to philosophical terms to try to make themselves sound like they have a real answer.
I really like you escape clause description. You’ll hear it a lot from those who have nothing substantial to offer or the courage to admit that they simply do not know.

 

[Amandil]

Oh yes…those who can prove nothing always fall back on such things, rather than simply admitting that they have no proof…only their belief. Of course, some will resort to philosophical terms to try to make themselves sound like they have a real answer.
I really like you escape clause description. You’ll hear it a lot from those who have nothing substantial to offer or the courage to admit that they simply do not know.

You mean like those who can’t explain the fact of existence to begin with and how its incompatible with their version of “god”?

Apparently your god created the universe for the same reason that someone sticks a screwdriver in a live electrical light socket-“curiosity”.

 

[oldcelt]

You mean like those who can’t explain the fact of existence to begin with and how its incompatible with their version of “god”?

Apparently your god created the universe for the same reason that someone sticks a screwdriver in a live electrical light socket-“curiosity”.

Perhaps…but I do not claim to know what cannot be studied, observed, analyzed. My god created because it seems to be in his nature. He is the first cause…not a micromanager.
BTW, we agree on the first cause.

 

[Amandil]

oldcelt:

Perhaps…but I do not claim to know what cannot be studied, observed, analyzed.

Whatever you say.

oldcelt:

My god created because it seems to be in his nature.

Why? Why is it his “nature”? What is his “nature” to begin with?

You say all these things as if they are true without any evidence.

oldcelt:

He is the first cause…not a micromanager.
BTW, we agree on the first cause.

A First Cause is by definition “necessary”. Limited contingent beings like us are not. So there is no reason for our existence according to your belief system.

And any “god” which creates out of “curiosity” cannot be an intelligent “god”, because it implies that the being you call “god” did not know something before he did it, which is inconceivable for any being which can properly considered to be “god”.

Neither is such a “First Cause” then necessary, because your “god” is in fact limited in his own being by something outside of himself.

Which then begs the question of if your “god” is even a first cause to begin with but is instead contingent upon something else for his being.

It simply doesn’t work.

 

[oldcelt]

Whatever you say.

Why? Why is it his “nature”? What is his “nature” to begin with?

You say all these things as if they are true without any evidence.

A First Cause is by definition “necessary”. Limited contingent beings like us are not. So there is no reason for our existence according to your belief system.

And any “god” which creates out of “curiosity” cannot be an intelligent “god”, because it implies that the being you call “god” did not know something before he did it, which is inconceivable for any being which can properly considered to be “god”.

Neither is such a “First Cause” then necessary, because your “god” is in fact limited in his own being by something outside of himself.

Which then begs the question of if your “god” is even a first cause to begin with but is instead contingent upon something else for his being.

It simply doesn’t work.

Thank you for your analysis…it will be given its due attention.

 

[Amandil]

Thank you for your analysis…it will be given its due attention.

Which will be amount as much attention as you give in regards to the actual teachings of the Church.

But when you can find some obscure writer who agrees with your opinions, well that’s another story entirely.

 

[oldcelt]

Which will be amount as much attention as you give in regards to the actual teachings of the Church.

But when you can find some obscure writer who agrees with your opinions, well that’s another story entirely.

You mean some obscure writer from Catholic.org. Sorry…next time I’ll choose a famous Deist.

 

[Amandil]

You mean some obscure writer from Catholic.org. Sorry…next time I’ll choose a famous Deist.

It wasn’t even “catholic.org”.

And the article had this disclaimer before it:

“Sounding Boards are one person’s take on a many-sided subject and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of U.S. Catholic, its editors, or the Claretians.”

So you essentially posted an editorial piece by a lay person as “proof” of the Catholic position and you expect me to believe that confirmation bias was not involved?

If someone turned a a history report using editorial reporting as his source you actually expect me to believe that you’d even pass him?

 

[davidv]

So we’ve come to the root of the matter. We don’t know why God creates hell-bound people.

This is the false assumption on which your erroneous conclusion rests. God’s people are created innocent. If they end up hell bound that is their personal responsibility. God did not create them hell bound.

If that lack of knowledge seems to have troubling implications for what we want to believe about God, then we simply assert that there must be some extenuating circumstances to explain why God did things the way we think he did. That’s fine and all, but it is yet another thing we have to have faith in. In other words, it is not adequate to simply have faith that God exists, we also have to take God’s goodness and benevolence on faith.

That must be a handy escape hatch. If you are ever presented with a well defined description of how God might behave and that description has troubling implications, you have only to pull the “we can’t really understand God” lever.

I perceive that religious people find it necessary to keep their “understanding” of God fuzzy and imprecise so that they can have all their good interpretations of God while preventing anyone from drawing any troubling conclusions.

 

[Estel]

There is a lot we don’t know, God’s ways are so far above our ways as the heavens are above the earth. I personally have the hope that the prophecy in revelation that says there will be no more pain will be fulfilled with an end to pain in hell. Certainly, there is no mercy God is not capable of, because He is Love.

 

[oldcelt]

This is the false assumption on which your erroneous conclusion rests. God’s people are created innocent. If they end up hell bound that is their personal responsibility. God did not create them hell bound.

But, according to Christian belief…he knew before he created them. There is no out from this one.

 

[fhansen]

But, according to Christian belief…he knew before he created them. There is no out from this one.

But with that you’ve summarily dismissed the possibility of God granting free will-for no other reason than that He can’t help but foreknow our free choices.

 

[oldcelt]

But with that you’ve summarily dismissed the possibility of God granting free will-for no other reason than that He can’t help but foreknow our free choices.

You’ve got it.

 

[fhansen]

You’ve got it.

Ok. So you don’t believe humans have free will? And no moral responsibility?

 

[tonyrey]

But, according to Christian belief…he knew before he created them. There is no out from this one.

God knows everything that is knowable. The activity of **non-existent **persons does not fit into that category. It is impossible to know nothing!

NB “before” is inapplicable to divine knowledge and activity.

 

[tonyrey]

Ok. So you don’t believe humans have free will? And no moral responsibility?

We are obviously not responsible for our conclusions!

 

[tonyrey]

There is a lot we don’t know, God’s ways are so far above our ways as the heavens are above the earth. I personally have the hope that the prophecy in revelation that says there will be no more pain will be fulfilled with an end to pain in hell. Certainly, there is no mercy God is not capable of, because He is Love.

We also have to reckon with the infinite power of evil which stems from God’s gift of free will. Hell has its compensations…