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

[Amandil]

JapaneseKappa:

God loves us, therefore he wants what is best for us.

God doesn’t only want the best for us, He wants us to want the best for us.

JapaneseKappa:

Matt 26:24

If God had wanted what was best for Judas, Judas would not have been born.

Judas was born.

Therefore, God did not want what was best for Judas.

Therefore, God did not love Judas.

Therefore God does not love everyone.

Your argument doesn’t follow.

God wanted the best even for Judas, Judas got to be a friend and apostle to Jesus.

Judas, even after betraying Christ (all the apostles, except John, abandoned Him), all he needed to do was trust in Christ’s own words:

“I will be raised again on the third day.”

He could have simply sought forgiveness for his sin and it would have been granted.

Instead, in his pride and arrogance, racked by despair, he committed suicide.

It’s not that God didn’t love Judas, Judas couldn’t love or forgive himself. He sought to escape himself and his guilt by suicide, by further sinning against God by destroying God’s image in himself.

So, and I may wrong but God save me if I am, Judas is in hell, trapped with himself and the knowledge of what he did for eternity. And he’s there because of his own decisions, not any lack of Gods love.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

God doesn’t only want the best for us, He wants us to want the best for us.

Your argument doesn’t follow.

God wanted the best even for Judas, Judas got to be a friend and apostle to Jesus.

He could have simply sought forgiveness for his sin and it would have been granted.

It’s not that God didn’t love Judas, Judas couldn’t love or forgive himself. He sought to escape himself and his guilt by suicide, by further sinning against God by destroying God’s image in himself.

Jesus himself said that it would have been better for Judas not to have been born. Are you telling me that you know more about what is good for people than Jesus? Maybe “betrayal of Jesus” is an unforgivable sin like in Mark 3:29

But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin.

 

[mikekle]

Jesus himself said that it would have been better for Judas not to have been born. Are you telling me that you know more about what is good for people than Jesus? Maybe “betrayal of Jesus” is an unforgivable sin like in Mark 3:29

That is an interesting thing Jesus said about Judas life…making me wonder even more about this subject. maybe what we know is just the tip of the iceberg, and there is a whole lot more to this that we think?

 

[Amandil]

Jesus himself said that it would have been better for Judas not to have been born. Are you telling me that you know more about what is good for people than Jesus? Maybe “betrayal of Jesus” is an unforgivable sin like in Mark 3:29

You really ought to pay attention to Scripture.

“The Son of Man goes as it is written, but woe to the man by whom the Son of Man has been betrayed.”

He said this in front of Judas. It did not cause Judas to betray Jesus, no more than when a mother tells her alcoholic son, “if you drink and drive you’re going to kill someone!”

The “unforgivable sin” in Mark is final impenitence, not betrayal.

Peter denied and cursed Jesus’s name, yet he received forgiveness.

Judas would have also if he at least had as much faith as Peter.

Judas refused to trust in Christ’s name, and Jesus knew that he would and what he would do because of it. Judas refused to listen.

 

[Amandil]

That is an interesting thing Jesus said about Judas life…making me wonder even more about this subject. maybe what we know is just the tip of the iceberg, and there is a whole lot more to this that we think?

Its not interesting at all. Its a terrible misinterpretation.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

You really ought to pay attention to Scripture.

“The Son of Man goes as it is written, but woe to the man by whom the Son of Man has been betrayed.”

He said this in front of Judas. It did not cause Judas to betray Jesus, no more than when a mother tells her alcoholic son, “if you drink and drive you’re going to kill someone!”

Its irrelevant what caused Judas to betray Jesus. The issue is that he DID betray Jesus, and Jesus said that person would be better off unborn.

The “unforgivable sin” in Mark is final impenitence, not betrayal.

Peter denied and cursed Jesus’s name, yet he received forgiveness.

Judas would have also if he at least had as much faith as Peter.

Judas refused to trust in Christ’s name, and Jesus knew that he would and what he would do because of it. Judas refused to listen.

I was simply suggesting that betraying Jesus might be another unforgivable sin. It certainly seems more serious than irreverence.

Its irrelevant what Judas could have done afterwards. Jesus said he would be better off unborn. If you are correct, and Judas wouldn’t have been better off unborn, Jesus was either making a statement in ignorance or lying.

 

[Amandil]

Its irreleventh what caused Judas to betray Jesus. The issue is that he DID betray Jesus, and Jesus said that person would be better off unborn.

I said nothing about cause. You apparently don’t understand hyperbole.

The Gospels also have Jesus saying, “If you eye causes you to sin, pluck it out…”

JapaneseKappa:

I was simply suggesting that betraying Jesus might be another unforgivable sin. It certainly seems more serious than irreverence.

"Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men… (Matt 12:31).

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is attributing to Satan the works of God; mature spiritual hardness that directs sinners away from God’s mercy and ends in final impenitence.

You can’t receive forgiveness when you refuse to ask for it.

JapaneseKappa:

Its irrelevant what Judas could have done afterwards. Jesus said he would be better off unborn. If you are correct, and Judas wouldn’t have been better off unborn, Jesus was either making a statement in ignorance or lying.

Judas would have been better off if he would have sought forgiveness.

In either case your statement is a false dichotomy.

 

[oldcelt]

Its irrelevant what caused Judas to betray Jesus. The issue is that he DID betray Jesus, and Jesus said that person would be better off unborn.

I was simply suggesting that betraying Jesus might be another unforgivable sin. It certainly seems more serious than irreverence.

Its irrelevant what Judas could have done afterwards. Jesus said he would be better off unborn. If you are correct, and Judas wouldn’t have been better off unborn, Jesus was either making a statement in ignorance or lying.

If Christians believe that these are Jesus’ words, then they should agree with my, and several others belief that a loving God would do precisely that. Never create damned people in the first place.

 

[Amandil]

If Christians believe that these are Jesus’ words, then they should agree with my, and several others belief that a loving God would do precisely that. Never create damned people in the first place.

Which is precisely why he’s incorrect.

 

[mikekle]

Its not interesting at all. Its a terrible misinterpretation.

That seems to be a common problem with people reading and understanding the bible…I wonder why God and its writers wrote it this way, when the goal was saving souls…why make it so different people would interpret it in different ways? Why not write the important parts in very clear, black and white language, so it cannot be misunderstood?

 

[Aloysium]

That seems to be a common problem with people reading and understanding the bible…I wonder why God and its writers wrote it this way, when the goal was saving souls…why make it so different people would interpret it in different ways? Why not write the important parts in very clear, black and white language, so it cannot be misunderstood?

But, why do you not ask Him?
I would suggest relinquishing your lapsed status and get back to participating in His Church.
Read the Catechism. If Aquinas is difficult to slog through, Ratzinger most certainly is not, imho.
Pray for knowledge and understanding in addition to asking God to be a more loving person, which is most important.
If it is God’s will, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, you will have answers to all your questions.

 

[oldcelt]

Which is precisely why he’s incorrect.

Jesus?

 

[oldcelt]

That seems to be a common problem with people reading and understanding the bible…I wonder why God and its writers wrote it this way, when the goal was saving souls…why make it so different people would interpret it in different ways? Why not write the important parts in very clear, black and white language, so it cannot be misunderstood?

Precisely. I’ll repeat, the bible is a deeply flawed document and were we talking about an academic subject it would be utterly rejected as a text. Virtually every Christian philosopher or apologist is forced to spend a great deal of time trying to explain why it doesn’t say what it clearly says.
An omniscient god surely would have done a better job at inspiring something.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

But, why do you not ask Him?
I would suggest relinquishing your lapsed status and get back to participating in His Church.
Read the Catechism. If Aquinas is difficult to slog through, Ratzinger most certainly is not, imho.
Pray for knowledge and understanding in addition to asking God to be a more loving person, which is most important.
If it is God’s will, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, you will have answers to all your questions.

This is not sensible advice. To pray for understanding suggests that you want or presuppose some particular claims to be reasonable. However, if someone is outside the church and investigating Catholicism, the intellectually honest route is to be a dispassionate evaluator of Catholic claims. It is entirely possible that some claims made by the church are not reasonable. However, if you want those claims to be reasonable badly enough, it is very likely that you will be able to convince yourself that they are through a series of mental gymnastics or deliberate misunderstanding of the claims.

On this particular topic, it certainly seems to me that allowing Judas to be born was not in Judas’ best interest according to Jesus’ statement that Judas would have been better off unborn. Making any other conclusion seems unreasonable to me, all the objections so far have seemed to simply be distractions and red herrings.

The next question to ask is whether or not all souls that go to hell would be better off unborn, or if Judas’ case is unique.

 

[tdgesq]

On this particular topic, it certainly seems to me that allowing Judas to be born was not in Judas’ best interest according to Jesus’ statement that Judas would have been better off unborn. Making any other conclusion seems unreasonable to me, all the objections so far have seemed to simply be distractions and red herrings.

While I’m certainly no expert on biblical hermeneutics, you definitely aren’t. “It would have been better for that man if he had not been born” and similar phrases can be found throughout the Bible. For example, “**ut better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.” Eccles 4:3.

It is a common Rabbinical idiom used to denote great misfortune about to befall the transgressor:

In Chagigah, fol. ii. 2, it is said: “Whoever considers these four things, it would have been better for him had he never come into the world, viz. That which is above - that which is below - that which is before - and that which is behind; and whosoever does not attend to the honor of his Creator, it were better for him had he never been born.”
In Shemoth Rabba, sect. 40, fol. 135, 1, 2, it is said: “Whosoever knows the law, and does not do it, it had been better for him had he never come into the world.”
In Viyikra Rabba, sect. 36, fol. 179, 4, and Midrash Coheleth, fol. 91, 4, it is thus expressed: “It were better for him had he never been created; and it would have been better for him had he been strangled in the womb, and never have seen the light of this world.”
In Sohar Genes. fol. 71, col. 282, it is said: “If any man be parsimonious towards the poor, it had been better for him had he never came into the world.” Ibid. fol. 84, col. 333: “If any performs the law, not for the sake of the law, it were good for that man had he never been created.” Adam Clarke Commentary.

So no, it is not unreasonable at all to conclude that Jesus was using the phrase consistent with its proverbial Jewish context.**

 

[JapaneseKappa]

While I’m certainly no expert on biblical hermeneutics, you definitely aren’t. “It would have been better for that man if he had not been born” and similar phrases can be found throughout the Bible. For example, “**ut better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.” Eccles 4:3.

It is a common Rabbinical idiom used to denote great misfortune about to befall the transgressor:

In Chagigah, fol. ii. 2, it is said: “Whoever considers these four things, it would have been better for him had he never come into the world, viz. That which is above - that which is below - that which is before - and that which is behind; and whosoever does not attend to the honor of his Creator, it were better for him had he never been born.”
In Shemoth Rabba, sect. 40, fol. 135, 1, 2, it is said: “Whosoever knows the law, and does not do it, it had been better for him had he never come into the world.”
In Viyikra Rabba, sect. 36, fol. 179, 4, and Midrash Coheleth, fol. 91, 4, it is thus expressed: “It were better for him had he never been created; and it would have been better for him had he been strangled in the womb, and never have seen the light of this world.”
In Sohar Genes. fol. 71, col. 282, it is said: “If any man be parsimonious towards the poor, it had been better for him had he never came into the world.” Ibid. fol. 84, col. 333: “If any performs the law, not for the sake of the law, it were good for that man had he never been created.” Adam Clarke Commentary.**

So no, it is not unreasonable at all to conclude that Jesus was using the phrase consistent with its proverbial Jewish context.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

So no, it is not unreasonable at all to conclude that Jesus was using the phrase consistent with its proverbial Jewish context.

I suppose some people might think that the fact you can find a few Jewish texts within half a dozen centuries containing similar phrases makes it a common proverb. I suspect instead that the people who say things like that believe them to be true, and they actually believe people would have been better off dead. After all, if the phrase is of Jewish origin, it should be understood in light of the Jewish perspectives on forgiveness rather than the Christian ones.

Also, supposing the phrase is proverbial does not necessarily mean it is literally inaccurate in this instance, after all, the claim is being made by God, not some mere mortal. Moreover, proverbial sayings typically do not signify the opposite of their literal meaning. For example, “One who lives by the sword, dies by the sword” doesn’t *always *mean people will be literally killed with swords. You are expected to substitute some form of violence for the literal word “sword.” However, in the case of this proverb there is nothing to substitute for “birth,” and the “proverb” turns out to be mere hyperbole.

Keep in mind that you’re telling me that when Jesus says
“It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”
he actually meant:
“That man will be in danger of having a great calamity befall him, but it won’t be so bad that it literally would have been better for him to have not been born. Moreover, it is possible for him to repent and avoid the calamity altogether. Ignore the fact that I am God and already know which things he will choose.”

 

[Amandil]

That seems to be a common problem with people reading and understanding the bible…I wonder why God and its writers wrote it this way, when the goal was saving souls…why make it so different people would interpret it in different ways? Why not write the important parts in very clear, black and white language, so it cannot be misunderstood?

The Bible was never meant to be read apart from the Tradition and experience of the Church.

The Bible was never meant to make Christians, but to edify Christians already made and to be read in light of the Church’s life and faith.

That’s why.

 

[Amandil]

This is not sensible advice. To pray for understanding suggests that you want or presuppose some particular claims to be reasonable.

That itself is unreasonable and a non-sequitur.

St. Augustine wrote, “(We) believe that we may understand, the more we understand, the better to believe.”

What is more reasonable: reasonable & methodical faith, or irrational methodical doubt? Your statement itself seems to presuppose that believers cannot be honest and sincere in their belief.

However, if someone is outside the church and investigating Catholicism, the intellectually honest route is to be a dispassionate evaluator of Catholic claims. It is entirely possible that some claims made by the church are not reasonable. However, if you want those claims to be reasonable badly enough, it is very likely that you will be able to convince yourself that they are through a series of mental gymnastics or deliberate misunderstanding of the claims.

If you believe that the claims are misunderstood, 1) how do you know? and 2) how do you prove it?

One could say that the most reasonable course in that case is to perform the experiment: become a Christian. Believe, read, understand and live the Catholic faith to its fullest.

Short of that any real honest evaluations are merely theories or hypotheses.

On this particular topic, it certainly seems to me that allowing Judas to be born was not in Judas’ best interest according to Jesus’ statement that Judas would have been better off unborn. Making any other conclusion seems unreasonable to me, all the objections so far have seemed to simply be distractions and red herrings.

No Red Herrings here. All the citations are relevant to the character of Jesus and how He taught and spoke.

There is a world of difference between something being “unreasonable” and something simply being not according to your taste of speaking.

The fact is that Jesus definitely had foreknowledge of Judas’ acts and even warned him where his acts would lead him. Judas heard Jesus’ words and instead went and did what he did anyway.

You can’t just simply dismiss these facts because you can’t appreciate them.

The next question to ask is whether or not all souls that go to hell would be better off unborn, or if Judas’ case is unique.

This goes back to a question I keep asking and have yet to receive an answer: If you knew prior to any of your children being born which ones would later tell you, “you are dead to me and you don’t exist in my life anymore!”, would you kill them either as they were conceived or before they were born?

Well?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

No Red Herrings here. All the citations are relevant to the character of Jesus and how He taught and spoke.

And the shirikodama is relevant to discussions of souls, but that doesn’t mean I should bring up the issue of Judas’s shirikodama.

This goes back to a question I keep asking and have yet to receive an answer: If you knew prior to any of your children being born which ones would later tell you, “you are dead to me and you don’t exist in my life anymore!”, would you kill them either as they were conceived or before they were born?

Well?

The reason no one will answer it is because it is an irrelevant question. The issue is not that people reject God so God should kill them. The issue is that God has made the consequences of rejecting God worse than dying before you were born.

Therefore, the question should be:

If you knew with absolute certainty that killing your unborn child was the best thing for the child, would you do it?
I would. People have been willing to kill their children for less. For example, see Abraham and Isaac.