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

[Aloysium]

. . . People have been willing to kill their children for less. For example, see Abraham and Isaac.

“For less”?

As painful, as irrational, as intolerable, meaningless, absurd, whatever words you would use, as bad as this sounded to Abraham, he knew it was God’s will. He trusted and had faith in God, who then forged a new relationship with mankind that would ultimately lead to the sacrifice of His own Son, thereby freeing us from sin and death.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

“For less”?

As painful, as irrational, as intolerable, meaningless, absurd, whatever words you would use, as bad as this sounded to Abraham, he knew it was God’s will. He trusted and had faith in God, who then forged a new relationship with mankind that would ultimately lead to the sacrifice of His own Son, thereby freeing us from sin and death.

So if God told you to kill your child, you would do it? I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t be able to rule out the possibility I was being deceived, going crazy, or mistaken in the assumption that God has my best interests at heart. Abraham would be unable to rule those possibilities out either, he simply took it on faith that they were not the case. In other words, he was willing to kill his child without absolute certainty. That is why Abraham was willing to kill for less: he had less-than-absolute certainty.

God, however, doesn’t have any of those doubts. He has absolute certainty, as I stipulated in my question.

 

[tdgesq]

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.

It’s not my analysis. It’s from Adam Clarke’s biblical commentary, which took 40 years to complete. It’s your prerogative to disagree with it. I disagree with a number of his conclusions. Questioning his motives or my motives isn’t a valid argument though.

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.

I’m ready to hear your professional exegetical basis for that. If it’s just speculation, then I suppose it’s just as valid to speculate that Jesus was familiar with the historical Jewish texts, yet as the first Christian he also taught forgiveness.

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.

Some Scripture scholars do admit the possibility of hyperbole. Fr. William Most, who held doctorates in classical languages and theology, commented:

Jesus adds that it would be better for the traitor never to have been born. Is this a revelation of the damnation of Judas? It could be Semitic exaggeration, so we are not sure, but it seems possible when we consider other instances of great exaggeration, such as Is 13:9-10 on fall of Babylon and Is 34:4 on punishment of Edom and Ezek 32:7-8 on judgment on Egypt. The Thought of St. Matthew.

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.”

No, that’s not my interpretation. What I am telling you is that you’ve provided no credentials by education or training that qualify you to interpret scriptural texts. I’ve given you two scholarly sources that question your conclusion. Thus, my statement that it’s reasonable to interpret Jesus’ statement as proverbial.

 

[Amandil]

So if God told you to kill your child, you would do it? I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t be able to rule out the possibility I was being deceived, going crazy, or mistaken in the assumption that God has my best interests at heart. Abraham would be unable to rule those possibilities out either, he simply took it on faith that they were not the case. In other words, he was willing to kill his child without absolute certainty. That is why Abraham was willing to kill for less: he had less-than-absolute certainty.

God, however, doesn’t have any of those doubts. He has absolute certainty, as I stipulated in my question.

Isaac was not a child in that passage from Genesis. Most Jewish traditions had Isaac at least at the age of 17 and others say he could easily have been older.

He was at least old enough to carry enough wood for a sacrifice up a mountain.

The fact is that as Isaac was a young man, where Abraham was over 120, Isaac would have easily been able to stop what was happening.

Isaac allowed himself to be bound for fear that he would resist.

Isaac had full knowledge and consented to what was going to happen to him.

Too many people are ignorant of these facts.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Isaac was not a child in that passage from Genesis. Most Jewish traditions had Isaac at least at the age of 17 and others say he could easily have been older.

He was at least old enough to carry enough wood for a sacrifice up a mountain.

The fact is that as Isaac was a young man, where Abraham was over 120, Isaac would have easily been able to stop what was happening.

Isaac allowed himself to be bound for fear that he would resist.

Isaac had full knowledge and consented to what was going to happen to him.

Too many people are ignorant of these facts.

All of those facts are irrelevant. We could suppose that the unborn child also knew that remaining unborn would be in its best interest and give it some say in the matter, if you like.

 

[Amandil]

All of those facts are irrelevant. We could suppose that the unborn child also knew that remaining unborn would be in its best interest and give it some say in the matter, if you like.

It’s not irrelevant, and just because you say it is is ridiculous.

Your whole premise in using the example of Abraham was your false presumption that Isaac was a small child and not a grown man.

Your claim of “irrelevance” is simply your way of dodging the issue.

How about we objectively look at all of the data and not just that which supports our point of view.

 

[Bradski]

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?

Let’s rephrase that question to be more accurate to the situation.

If you knew when your child was born that a few years hence she would be tortured continuously, not for an hour or two or even a day or two or even a year or so, but for eternity, what would you do?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I’m ready to hear your professional exegetical basis for that. If it’s just speculation, then I suppose it’s just as valid to speculate that Jesus was familiar with the historical Jewish texts, yet as the first Christian he also taught forgiveness.

But Jesus would also know that the Jews would understand his words in the Jewish sense (or, after many centuries, in the literal sense.) His words would therefore be frequently misinterpreted and/or ambiguous. In fact the only people who could “get it right” would be people familiar with both the Jewish phrase *and *Jesus’s new revelations on forgiveness. Doing things this way makes very little sense.

Is this a revelation of the damnation of Judas? It could be Semitic exaggeration, so we are not sure

It does seem odd that God would choose to use an ambiguous phrase. It gets to mikekle’s point:

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?

So I will grant that you have supplied some reasons for suspecting that Jesus said:

“it were better for him, if that man had not been born.”

He did not literally mean

“it were better for him, if that man had not been born.”

and the truth of the matter is that:

“it were not better for him, if that man had not been born.”

However, I think you must agree that none of your sources offer any sort of empirical method for determining which interpretation is the correct one. They all boil down to judgement calls. And while your sources certainly have studied the ancient texts more than I have, they also have a much greater interest in avoiding the troubling implications of a person for whom “it were better for him, if that man had not been born.”

 

[JapaneseKappa]

It’s not irrelevant, and just because you say it is is ridiculous.

Your whole premise in using the example of Abraham was your false presumption that Isaac was a small child and not a grown man.

So you think that unborn children are less human than grown children?

 

[Amandil]

Let’s rephrase that question to be more accurate to the situation.

Accurate? According to whom?

You haven’t really demonstrated much knowledge or accuracy in the realm of faith and morals.

Bradski:

If you knew when your child was born that a few years hence she would be tortured continuously, not for an hour or two or even a day or two or even a year or so, but for eternity, what would you do?

This is supposed to be “accurate”? According to whom? Its too vague to even be addressed.

By who, or by what?

How? Your question is horribly deficient.

E.g.: My child gets addicted to cocaine. Refuses to give it up. Gets angry at me because I refuse to help them buy more drugs. They grow deeper and deeper into their habit until they die of an overdose.

Where exactly is the torture in the above example? The parent who out of love refuses to enable their drug addicted son or daughter? Or lets them have their way when they refuse to speak to them because of such?

You just continue to be so absurdly obtuse that no matter how many times I explain these things you either just willfully ignore them or lack the reading comprehension to understand.

Not only do you not understand theology, you seem to have a serious problem with logic.

Did they choose to be tortured by their own volition?

 

[Amandil]

So you think that unborn children are less human than grown children?

And exactly where did you even get that impression?

 

[Bradski]

Did they choose to be tortured by their own volition?

She will commit a mortal sin and end up in hell. If you know that this is likely to happen, would you rather not conceive her or would you kill her if already born?

By the way, I might be OK in this regard because even atheists can get to heaven. Well, at least the Pope says so:

Francis explained himself, “The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart, do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can… “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ, all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!” We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.” catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=51077

 

[salvemater]

“The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a man who sowed good seed in his field. While everyone was asleep his enemy came and sowed weeds all through the wheat, and then went off. When the crop grew and bore fruit, the weeds appeared as well. The slaves of the householder came to him and said, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where have the weeds come from?’ He answered, ‘An enemy has done this.’ His slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ He replied, ‘No, if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them. Let them grow together until harvest; then at harvest time I will say to the harvesters, “First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles for burning; but gather the wheat into my barn.”’” (Mt 13:24-30)

How many people who are saved are descended from people who are damned? If those damned people were not to come into existence, then the saved would never be conceived either.
Also, if everybody on the world was to be saved, they would all be saints, and thus there would be no root for evil to take place. There would be no evil to do battle with and no people to evangelize to, and thus the Church’s mission would be somewhat pointless. It would, paradoxically, be hard to be a saint because it would be hard to embody the values of the “Church Militant.”

There are a number of reasons why God wouldn’t just “not create the bad people.” We, as limited humans beings, should just accept with humility that God, Who is infinitely intelligent, knows more than we do about the matter.

 

[Amandil]

She will commit a mortal sin and end up in hell. If you know that this is likely to happen, would you rather not conceive her or would you kill her if already born?

Neither. She’s only my child in a relational sense, not in any absolute sense. Nor can I help if she refuses God’s love and grace. She has to make that choice herself for good or ill.

I have no right to take it away from her. Nor do I have the right to deny God’s creative action.

Bradski:

By the way, I might be OK in this regard because even atheists can get to heaven. Well, at least the Pope says so:

Francis explained himself, “The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart, do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can… “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ, all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!” We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.” catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=51077

It’s possible that anyone may be saved, but not by atheism.

 

[Bradski]

It’s possible that anyone may be saved, but not by atheism.

I hope you’re not going to argue with His Holiness.

Francis explained himself, “The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart, do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can… “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ, all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’** Even the atheists.** Everyone!” We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

 

[Amandil]

I hope you’re not going to argue with His Holiness.

Francis explained himself, “The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart, do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can… “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ, all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’** Even the atheists.** Everyone!” We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

Not at all, his words are obviously not unqualified.

Atheists cannot be saved by atheism.

Nor can they be saved by their good works alone.

They can only be saved by Christ, period.

 

[Bradski]

Nor can they be saved by their good works alone.

Again, I will point to to the words of Francis:

Francis explained himself, "The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart, do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! **He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can… **“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ, all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!” We must meet one another doing good. 'But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there."

The Pope believes that atheists can be saved by good works. And as I’m pretty certain that he realises that an atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in God (as opposed to denying his existence in this case), good works is all we will have to offer.

I’m happy with that. Who needs Pascall’s Wager…

 

[Amandil]

Again, I will point to to the words of Francis:

Francis explained himself, "The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart, do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! **He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can… **“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ, all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!” We must meet one another doing good. 'But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there."

The Pope believes that atheists can be saved by good works. And as I’m pretty certain that he realises that an atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in God (as opposed to denying his existence in this case), good works is all we will have to offer.

I’m happy with that. Who needs Pascall’s Wager…

To do good is a positive way of proclaiming what is necessarily for salvation. It means to believe the Gospel, repent, live the faith in the life of the Church, receive the sacraments.

Redemption is not salvation.

Again, you’re reading what you want into the text.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, thus it is not your own doing, it is the gift of God, not because of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph 2:8)

Two problems, either the Pope is contradicting 2000 years of Church teaching on soteriology, or you’re again incorrect.

My vote is fthe latter.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

And exactly where did you even get that impression?

Well for some reason you think that a child’s age is relevant. Maybe its the other way around, you think a grown boy would be less human than an unborn one?

 

[Amandil]

Well for some reason you think that a child’s age is relevant. Maybe its the other way around, your think a grown boy would be less human than an unborn one?

You brought up the story of Abraham because you thought that you could make an appeal to emotion based upon your false presumption that Isaac was still a small child.

When I point out that Isaac was a grown man who willingly submitted to be sacrificed all of a sudden your own example becomes “irrelevant”.

Its your refusal to draw these types of distinctions which makes your rhetorical questions absurd.