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

[JapaneseKappa]

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.

So you think it is ok to allow -]a doctor/-] your father to kill you if you consent and -]a doctor/-] your father thinks it is what God would want?

 

[Amandil]

So you think it is ok to allow -]a doctor/-] your father to kill you if you consent and -]a doctor/-] your father thinks it is what God would want?

You’re begging the question: how do you know that Isaac didn’t know what God wanted?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

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.

So, to summarize (and get back on topic)
I pointed out that your original question was not the correct question and rephrased it into a more relevant one:

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.

I explained that “for less” meant that Abraham had less-than-the-absolute certainty I stipulated in my question:

…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.

You brought up Isaac’s age, seeming to imply that his age somehow made the Isaac/Abraham situation different.

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.

I attempted to understand why you thought the age difference was relevant by thinking what sort of things would change the situation. I attempted to offer modifications to my question in order to fix your perceived discrepancies (specifically I said we could make the child know what was happening and give it the opportunity to consent):

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.

You rejected these modifications and claimed that Isaac’s age was still relevant. I attempted to find other reasons why it would have been relevant, but you rejected those:

JapaneseKappa;12194359:

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

And exactly where did you even get that impression?

I then hypothesized that perhaps it was some interaction of factors:

JapaneseKappa;12195494:

So you think it is ok to allow -]a doctor/-] your father to kill you if you consent and -]a doctor/-] your father thinks it is what God would want?

You’re begging the question: how do you know that Isaac didn’t know what God wanted?

Now you are suggesting that the difference was Isaac knew what was God intended (despite the fact that you rejected that modification earlier)

Gen 22:7 Isaac said to his father: My father. And he answered: What wilt thou, son? Behold, saith he, fire and wood: where is the victim for the holocaust?

So I can only conclude that you are grasping at straws. I will stand by my rejection of your question and assert that this is in fact the correct analogous question:

If you knew with absolute certainty that killing your unborn child was the best thing for the child, would you do it?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

“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.

So what you are saying is that if some bad people were to not exist, the world would be a worse place.

I.e. some bad people make the world a better place.

I.e. the world is best when the percentage of people that are good is not 100%.

You are arguing that this is the case (the graph is qualitative.)

That has very troubling conclusions. Specifically, consider a person who lived in a world where everyone was good. According to this reasoning, he could make the world better by choosing to be bad. That implies that at all times we have two competing moral standards: what God considers best for us (i.e. 100% goodness) and what God considers best for the world (i.e. non-100% goodness.)

 

[Amandil]

So, to summarize (and get back on topic)
I pointed out that your original question was not the correct question and rephrased it into a more relevant one:
I explained that “for less” meant that Abraham had less-than-the-absolute certainty I stipulated in my question…

Abraham’s certitude did not negate his certainty in God’s promise.

So your question is pointless.

JapaneseKappa:

You brought up Isaac’s age, seeming to imply that his age somehow made the Isaac/Abraham situation different. I attempted to understand why you thought the age difference was relevant by thinking what sort of things would change the situation.

Apparently having no choice or will in a matter and having a choice or will in the same matter according to your views makes no difference.

Makes total sense.

JapaneseKappa:

I attempted to offer modifications to my question in order to fix your perceived discrepancies…

And continually referring to a grown man as a child is not a “discrepency”?

Hilarious.

JapaneseKappa:

(specifically I said we could make the child know what was happening and give it the opportunity to consent): You rejected these modifications and claimed that Isaac’s age was still relevant.

Again, will or no will makes no difference in your mind. Perfectly rational.

JapaneseKappa:

Now you are suggesting that the difference was Isaac knew what was God intended (despite the fact that you rejected that modification earlier)

Prove that I said anything like that. Or cease putting words in my mouth.

JapaneseKappa:

So I can only conclude that you are grasping at straws. I will stand by my rejection of your question and assert that this is in fact the correct analogous question:

If you knew with absolute certainty that killing your unborn child was the best thing for the child, would you do it?

I already answered it. I’m not going to answer it again.

 

[salvemater]

So what you are saying is that if some bad people were to not exist, the world would be a worse place.

I.e. some bad people make the world a better place.

I.e. the world is best when the percentage of people that are good is not 100%.

You are arguing that this is the case (the graph is qualitative.)

That has very troubling conclusions. Specifically, consider a person who lived in a world where everyone was good. According to this reasoning, he could make the world better by choosing to be bad. That implies that at all times we have two competing moral standards: what God considers best for us (i.e. 100% goodness) and what God considers best for the world (i.e. non-100% goodness.)

My point was unclear, and I apologize. I was trying to get across that, although God does not desire evil, He intervenes in the affairs of evil people to bring out something good.

For example, God did not want the fall to happen, but at the same time, He knew it would. And so He had planned, from the beginning, a way of redeeming people from their sins that would grant them the possibility of living in a heavenly state that is far superior to the preternatural state that Adam and Eve lived in.
In other words, He used the evil that He abhorred and knew would occur to set in place a plan that would in fact make people better off than they would have been had they not sinned.

It can appear counter-intuitive, but like I said, God has an intellect far beyond our own. As an analogy, if life were a painting, He would utilize the mistakes that at first detract from the beauty of the picture to transform the picture into something that is ultimately more beautiful.

In many ways, it is a testament to God’s love and Satan’s humiliating defeat at the same time.

And the specific example I used in my first comment was that God utilizes the evil in the world to increase our own holiness. The Church exists on Earth to be a bulwark against evil in the world, hence why we are called the Church Militant. When we do battle with evil, we become saintly.
In a world where everybody was “good,” this means of spirituality would in many ways be obsolete, and there would be, in fact, very little purpose for having a Church on Earth in the first place. The Church Militant is a great example of how God uses evil in the world to produce something good.
But that’s not to say that God would not desire everybody in the world to be good, so that all would be saved. We were all made for heaven, after all.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

My point was unclear, and I apologize. I was trying to get across that, although God does not desire evil, He intervenes in the affairs of evil people to bring out something good.

For example, God did not want the fall to happen, but at the same time, He knew it would. And so He had planned, from the beginning, a way of redeeming people from their sins that would grant them the possibility of living in a heavenly state that is far superior to the preternatural state that Adam and Eve lived in.
In other words, He used the evil that He abhorred and knew would occur to set in place a plan that would in fact make people better off than they would have been had they not sinned.

So people could have messed up God’s plan for a better world by exercising their free will to do good?

I will also point out that I have a hard time imagining an omnipotent being wanting something but not willing it (after all, in God, will and power are one.) A “want” seems to imply a potential, but God is supposedly pure actuality.

It can appear counter-intuitive, but like I said, God has an intellect far beyond our own. As an analogy, if life were a painting, He would utilize the mistakes that at first detract from the beauty of the picture to transform the picture into something that is ultimately more beautiful.

I certainly can appreciate a Wabi-sabi aesthetic. However, I also have a hard time imagining this as the best of all possible worlds. For example, I strongly suspect the mothers in Egypt whose firstborn were killed by an angel of the lord would argue that God is not making the world better for them.

And the specific example I used in my first comment was that God utilizes the evil in the world to increase our own holiness. The Church exists on Earth to be a bulwark against evil in the world, hence why we are called the Church Militant. When we do battle with evil, we become saintly.
In a world where everybody was “good,” this means of spirituality would in many ways be obsolete, and there would be, in fact, very little purpose for having a Church on Earth in the first place. The Church Militant is a great example of how God uses evil in the world to produce something good.
But that’s not to say that God would not desire everybody in the world to be good, so that all would be saved. We were all made for heaven, after all.

It is very exciting to think of life as some sort of battle between good and evil, but I can’t help but feel that this is a little bit of a childish perspective. Sure, comic book heroes get to look very heroic and inspirational when they save the city and kids are inspired to do good works. However, I can’t help but feel like the world would be better off if it didn’t need the heroes in the first place. There certainly would be a lot less collateral damage.

 

[oldcelt]

My point was unclear, and I apologize. I was trying to get across that, although God does not desire evil, He intervenes in the affairs of evil people to bring out something good.

For example, God did not want the fall to happen, but at the same time, He knew it would. And so He had planned, from the beginning, a way of redeeming people from their sins that would grant them the possibility of living in a heavenly state that is far superior to the preternatural state that Adam and Eve lived in.
In other words, He used the evil that He abhorred and knew would occur to set in place a plan that would in fact make people better off than they would have been had they not sinned.

It can appear counter-intuitive, but like I said, God has an intellect far beyond our own. As an analogy, if life were a painting, He would utilize the mistakes that at first detract from the beauty of the picture to transform the picture into something that is ultimately more beautiful.

In many ways, it is a testament to God’s love and Satan’s humiliating defeat at the same time.

And the specific example I used in my first comment was that God utilizes the evil in the world to increase our own holiness. The Church exists on Earth to be a bulwark against evil in the world, hence why we are called the Church Militant. When we do battle with evil, we become saintly.
In a world where everybody was “good,” this means of spirituality would in many ways be obsolete, and there would be, in fact, very little purpose for having a Church on Earth in the first place. The Church Militant is a great example of how God uses evil in the world to produce something good.
But that’s not to say that God would not desire everybody in the world to be good, so that all would be saved. We were all made for heaven, after all.

The scenario you describe does not appear counter-intuitive…it is counter-intuitive. If an omniscient, omnipotent deity creates knowing that his creation will do evil, the that deity has created evil for his own purposes. To justify it by saying that we would lose some portion of spirituality and the need for a church if we didn’t have to battle evil is not rational. If that God desired that all people in the world would be good…they would be…period. But that god had some sort of twisted agenda in which we were to be his little soldiers, battle the evil persons that he created, believe all this was for our good…or burn for eternity.

 

[oldcelt]

So people could have messed up God’s plan for a better world by exercising their free will to do good?

I will also point out that I have a hard time imagining an omnipotent being wanting something but not willing it (after all, in God, will and power are one.) A “want” seems to imply a potential, but God is supposedly pure actuality.

I certainly can appreciate a Wabi-sabi aesthetic. However, I also have a hard time imagining this as the best of all possible worlds. For example, I strongly suspect the mothers in Egypt whose firstborn were killed by an angel of the lord would argue that God is not making the world better for them.

It is very exciting to think of life as some sort of battle between good and evil, but I can’t help but feel that this is a little bit of a childish perspective. Sure, comic book heroes get to look very heroic and inspirational when they save the city and kids are inspired to do good works. However, I can’t help but feel like the world would be better off if it didn’t need the heroes in the first place. There certainly would be a lot less collateral damage.

Excellent analogy.

 

[Tom_Baum]

I did answer it, saying that God knew people would reject Him without willing that to happen.

My “little prayer” was only included because its part of the paragraph I cited to show the Church teaching that God predestines no one to hell. In a later post I cited paragraph 600, which further explains that God’s “choices” are actually based on* our*, free, choices.

Of course

When you visited hell did you ask anyone there if they’d prefer not to exist, rather than continue to exist without God, which is taught to be the chief aspect of hells torments? Either way, if you know God then you should be able to trust that He’s “come up with a Plan that is worthy of a God Who supposedly is INFINITELY MERCIFUL.”

God will not violate our free will-He do so didn’t for Adam, He won’t do so now, while He does give us all the grace we need to help make the right choices. How He works out the details from there I don’t know except that however He does it, the plan will be consistent with love.

Concerning, “I did answer it, saying that God knew people would reject Him without willing that to happen”.

Willing it or not willing it has nothing to do with whether or not God knew before creation (Omniscience) whether or not someone would go to hell for ever and ever and ever…, as some believe/think and it seems as if there are some that are quite looking forward to something like this coming to be.

I believe that God has “all of the bases covered”, so to speak, there are many things written in the bible that seem to be contradictory but are they(?) or are they complimentary(?) as bringing God’s Words, “My Ways are not your ways and My Thoughts are not your thoughts”, to Fruition.

As far as “When you visited hell did you ask anyone there if they’d prefer not to exist, rather than continue to exist without God, which is taught to be the chief aspect of hells torments? Either way, if you know God then you should be able to trust that He’s “come up with a Plan that is worthy of a God Who supposedly is INFINITELY MERCIFUL.””

I did NOT “visit hell”, I experienced hell, BIG DIFFERENCE.

I did not see anyone but I do not have to ask anyone since I can not only answer the question concerning preferring “not to exist” but I already have.

All “hells”, by the way, are custom built by its inhabitant.

Rather than hell being one of the pleasures of those in heaven as I have read that some thologians over the years have said, maybe hell is something that God allows us to build for a reason that is not only ultimately for the good but will be a “showcase”, so to speak, of God’s Mercy.

I have met God and KNOW that God Is a Being of Love and that is about the extent of my"knowledge" of God, I do, however, have many beliefs concerning God and since I know that God Is a Being of Love as opposed to love being merely an attribute of God, this is what I base many of my beliefs on.

One of my beliefs concerning God-Incarnate is that He went to hell, all of everyone’s hells, rather than to just the “abode of the good dead”.

Seems to me that many people seem to believe/think that “Fear of the Lord” means to be terrified of God and not even being capable of thinking of anything on their own, only going by what the “higher-ups” have said to believe as opposed to being in “awe and wonder” that God could care for ALL and could come up with a Plan for ALL.

 

[salvemater]

So people could have messed up God’s plan for a better world by exercising their free will to do good?

No. God’s plan is based upon what He already knew we would do with our free will.
In other words, He doesn’t purposely cause something evil to happen. He just responds in the best possible way to what He knows we are already going to do.

I will also point out that I have a hard time imagining an omnipotent being wanting something but not willing it (after all, in God, will and power are one.) A “want” seems to imply a potential, but God is supposedly pure actuality.

God could easily not want sin but still will that it be allowed to happen. How? As you mentioned above, we have free will. Because God desires that we love Him, and love requires free will.

Here’s a quote from Fr. Donald H. Calloway’s book, “Under the Mantle: Marian Thoughts from a 21st Century Priest:”

"Created human persons can chose to be in communion with others, produce fruit, and act responsibly; or they can turn away from love, live in isolation, and bring hardship and pain to others. As we know, our first parents used their free will poorly and brought sin into the world. But that wasn’t the end of the story. As a matter of fact, it wasn’t even the beginning of the story. Though Adam and Eve were given an earthly paradise and lost it by failing to love and act responsibility, God’s providential and merciful love allowed their fall to happen -though he didn’t will it or desire it. The truth of the matter is that God knew it would happen, and he allowed it to happen because he had something better in mind.

"An earthly paradise is good, but it’s not good enough. God knew full well that Adam and Eve would fall, but that did not thwart his original intention for creating the heavens and the earth. Created persons were made to be in a nuptial union with God. We were created for a marriage feast! and as everybody knows, marriage require preparation and planning. Therefore, being omnipotent, God had already made provisions ahead of time for Adam and Eve’s fall. He did this because the meaning and ultimate purpose of creation is not centered on the persons of Adam and Eve. Though they came first in chronological time, in the divine plan, spiritual marriage was in the mind of God from all eternity. The ultimate meaning and purpose of creation was only brought to light in the fullness of time by the coming of the heavenly bridegroom, Jesus Christ. The absolute primacy of Christ is sung about every year by the Church during the Easter Vigil in the beautiful hymn of the ‘Exultet’:

What good would life have been to us,
had Christ not come as our Redeemer?
Father, how wonderful your care for us!
How boundless your merciful love!
To ransom a slave you gave away your Son.
O happy fault,
O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us
so great a Redeemer!"

I certainly can appreciate a Wabi-sabi aesthetic. However, I also have a hard time imagining this as the best of all possible worlds. For example, I strongly suspect the mothers in Egypt whose firstborn were killed by an angel of the lord would argue that God is not making the world better for them.

Besides the fact that this is attempting to judge God’s intentions from a subjective and personal perspective, it completely fails to take into account human will in the matter.
God didn’t WANT the Egyptians to commit the evils they did. But since He knew they would, He used their evils to change the course of history, affirm His own supremacy over the world and its idols, and to set forth the beginnings of His covenant and its demand for sacrifice that would ultimate culminate in the death of Jesus Christ on the cross.

One only needs to read the book of Genesis to know that God responds to sins which He hates to make the world better. The entire nation of Israel, the Chosen People, was established upon the sons of a man who stole the blessing from his older brother. And one also only needs to look at the image of Jesus on the cross to know that God uses evil to do good.

It is very exciting to think of life as some sort of battle between good and evil, but I can’t help but feel that this is a little bit of a childish perspective. Sure, comic book heroes get to look very heroic and inspirational when they save the city and kids are inspired to do good works. However, I can’t help but feel like the world would be better off if it didn’t need the heroes in the first place. There certainly would be a lot less collateral damage.

Call it what you will, but that is the teaching of the Church. That is, again, why we are called the Church Militant. Comic books and fairy tales are based upon a Christian understanding of the world. The modern notion of “it’s really God’s fault that there is evil at all” is a secular perspective that is quite frankly stupid, to be straightforward and honest. It’s easy to shift blame and state that it would be better for everyone if there were no evil, but that’s simply not our reality. Evil exists, not because of God, but because of man, and because of that we are obligated to be heroes. Is their collateral damage? Yes. But it’s better than doing nothing. Recall that Ex 15:3 states, “The Lord is a man of war; the Lord is His name.” The weapon of His choice is the Cross.

I’m always somewhat amused by the fact that those who blame God for not wiping evil from the face of the Earth are almost always those who would be wiped away, if they got what they wanted. Who hasn’t committed a sin? To what degree should God “withhold his mercy?”

 

[Tom_Baum]

Who would tell you that you cannot pray this? I say this prayer every day as well. It is a beautiful prayer.

I was speaking about praying “for every man, woman and child who ever was, is or will be”.

I was told that I had to be more specific and even tho I am not mentioning every man, woman and child that ever was, is or will be by name since that is an impossibility, at least for me although not for God, I consider that I am being very specific in wanting God’s Mercy for ALL.

I, personally, like the Mass in the vernacular since I understand the vernacular and during the Mass in one of the Eucharistic prayers, the priest prays for “MERCY FOR ALL” and I think that if one may happen to hear this, that one may happen to “ponder” this.

 

[salvemater]

The scenario you describe does not appear counter-intuitive…it is counter-intuitive. If an omniscient, omnipotent deity creates knowing that his creation will do evil, the that deity has created evil for his own purposes. To justify it by saying that we would lose some portion of spirituality and the need for a church if we didn’t have to battle evil is not rational. If that God desired that all people in the world would be good…they would be…period. But that god had some sort of twisted agenda in which we were to be his little soldiers, battle the evil persons that he created, believe all this was for our good…or burn for eternity.

He did not create evil; He created a good being that had the capability of committing evil.

God desires that we be good, but we have the free will not to be.
Would you rather that we not have free will? What then, would make us different from a rock? We would be cold, hard matter, simply responding to stimuli.

And you compare God to a dictator using soldiers to advance an agenda, but to be fair, do we not see people using unfortunate situations to advance good things all the time? Would we call these people evil? Was it evil for the Civil Rights Movement to use the escalated acts of violence against minorities to advance the need for legal equality?

 

[Tom_Baum]

It is impossible to know what people will do before they exist! Omniscience doesn’t entail absurdity.

If I understand your answer than you know that God is NOT Omniscient.

Ever given any thought to the “fact” that there could be things about God the Creator that are beyond the understanding of the created?

 

[oldcelt]

He did not create evil; He created a good being that had the capability of committing evil.

God desires that we be good, but we have the free will not to be.
Would you rather that we not have free will? What then, would make us different from a rock? We would be cold, hard matter, simply responding to stimuli.

He created something that he KNEW would do evil…knew, not guessed, not thought had the potential…he knew.

Our free will, for what it is under the system you describe, in no way interferes with omniscience.

He knows all real things in the past, present, and the future by his knowledge of vision. When God, in his self-consciousness, beholds his infinite operative power, he knows therein all that he, as the main effective cause actually comprehends, i.e., all reality. The difference between past, present, and future does not exist for the divine knowledge, since for God all is simultaneously present.

By the same knowledge of vision, God also foresees the future free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. As taught by the Church, “All things are naked and open to His eyes, even those things that will happen through the free actions of creatures” (Denzinger 3003). The future free actions foreseen by God follow infallibly not because God substitutes his will for the free wills of his creatures but because he does not interfere with the freedom that he foresees creatures will exercise.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35262

 

[salvemater]

He created something that he KNEW would do evil…knew, not guessed, not thought had the potential…he knew.

So you’re essentially saying you’d rather not exist?

God’s love is the essence of Creation; Creation exists for God to love it. And because love is our greatest joy, God gave His Creation the capability to love, which entails free will. All of the created world that has the capability of love also has the capability of evil. That’s why angels have the capability to fall as well.

So what you’re essentially saying is that God should have created absolutely nothing because Creation has the capability of committing evil. Which means that God would have been forced to contain His love by intentionally refusing to create anything to direct His love towards.

Anybody who contemplates on that long enough will realize that it is simply absurd.

Is it not better for there to be some created beings in Heaven than none?
And is it not better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all?

I’m sorry, but when people imply that their hearts are screaming to God, “How dare you have created me? I have the capability of committing evil! Destroy me at once!” I just can’t help but call that stupid. There is obviously a lack of understanding about love and mercy involved.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Accurate? According to whom?

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

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, I think that you know exactly what Bradski is talking about, why don’t you address what he/she is so clearly asking you?

The question was: “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?”

Can’t you even give a thought to this or do you think that it is uncatholic to think?

 

[oldcelt]

So you’re essentially saying you’d rather not exist?

God’s love is the essence of Creation; Creation exists for God to love it. And because love is our greatest joy, God gave us His Creation the capability to love, which entails free will. All of the created world that has the capability of love also has the capability of evil. That’s why angels have the capability to fall as well.

So what you’re essentially saying is that God should have created absolutely nothing because Creation has the capability of committing evil. Which means that God would have been forced to contain His love by intentionally refusing to create anything to direct His love towards.

Anybody who contemplates on that long enough will realize that it is simply absurd.

Is it not better for there to be some created beings in Heaven than none?
And is it not better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all?

I’m sorry, but when people imply that their hearts are screaming to God, “How dare you have created me? I have the capability of committing evil! Destroy me at once!” I just can’t help but call that stupid. There is obviously a lack of understanding about love and mercy involved.

First, it is best to read everything carefully before responding. I rather enjoy life and do not consider myself or the vast majority of humanity to be evil.

Second, I do not believe that God directly created us. We evolved from His creation and He controls nothing on earth.

Third, under the Christian system, an all-knowing God created everything and everybody knowing precisely what they would do. If they prove to be evil, He created it.

In my mind, if a deity is so desperate for love, don’t use sentient beings as a tool to achieve that goal. I just don’t view God as that needy.

So, the lack of understanding was not on my part.

 

[tonyrey]

He created something that he KNEW would do evil…knew, not guessed, not thought had the potential…he knew.

Our free will, for what it is under the system you describe, in no way interferes with omniscience.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35262

In that case no one should have children because the laws of probability tell us most people “do evil” sooner or later…

 

[salvemater]

Second, I do not believe that God directly created us. We evolved from His creation and He controls nothing on earth.

The concept of deism falls apart very easily.

First, if we are to understand God as a Being with a personality, making Him something other than “the energy of the universe” or “the fundamental structure of science” or something of a similar ridiculous nature, then it is quite obvious that He would want to be involved with His Creation.

Second, how can God not have control over the very system He created? Why would He design such a system that is so great that He cannot manipulate it? In fact, how is it even possible?

Third, how can we declare the personality of a God that is completely indifferent His Creation somehow less cruel and more loving that a God who is entirely invested in loving His Creation and saving them?

In my mind, if a deity is so desperate for love, don’t use sentient beings as a tool to achieve that goal. I just don’t view God as that needy.

What is your mind compared to the mind of God? On what basis can you declare such judgment?

Let’s put it this way. “In your mind,” if you were a loving God who wanted others to willingly love you in return, what would you do? And if you encountered evil, how would you put an end to it without either using sentient beings or simply destroying them?

You’re essentially making the argument that the Christian God can’t exist because He doesn’t do what you would do.