Why not create a free world in which none go to hell?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alterum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If God is omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent (i.e., omnimax), then He desires that all men be saved, He knows before creating them which will freely choose heaven and which will freely choose hell, and He has the power to create only those men who will go to heaven without destroying free will. So, why is it not a logical necessity that He do these things?
Click to expand...
Then it’s not exactly free will, is it? Free will is based on choice. Eliminate the choice, no free will. The above self contradictory.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
Nicene said:
Then it’s not exactly free will, is it? Free will is based on choice. Eliminate the choice, no free will. The above self contradictory.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstand me. You will agree, I’m sure, that in creating people who will go to heaven, God is not violating their free will. Therefore, there is no violation of free will in God’s creating only people who will freely choose heaven.
 
Alterum said:
I do not think the damned would ever do this.
Click to expand...
Hello Alterum,

Would you not agree that the Rich man in Christ’s Rich Man and Lazerus story cryed out to God for mercy, from hell? See post #37 When the rich man is told that there will be no mercy given to him then his request is to go back to earth simply to tell his brothers to repent so they will not also end up in hell. This indicates that he has repented in hell. The rich man in hell has repented, prays for mercy, wants to preach to his brothers to repent, but is denied mercy. What do you think?
 
Alterum said:
I don’t have a conceptual problem with hell, but I was posed the following question by a friend (it’s a bit like the “problem of evil;” and nor do I have a problem with that):

If God is omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent (i.e., omnimax), then He desires that all men be saved, He knows before creating them which will freely choose heaven and which will freely choose hell, and He has the power to create only those men who will go to heaven without destroying free will. So, why is it not a logical necessity that He do these things?
Click to expand...
At one time, humankind was created to forever be with God.
And it was called “Eden.”
And then came sin, and hell, and everything that separates us from God.

I’d like to use an analogy for this.
Scenerio 1:
Let’s say theres a dog (human) named Sparky, going for a walk with God. God doesn’t have Sparky on a leash. Sparky sees a bird. God says, “Sparky, don’t go after that bird. Don’t run away.” Sparky can either obey, or follow the bird. If he obeys and stays close to God, he’s assured he will get home. If he choses to pursue the bird, he now finds himself alone, but can still return to God if he hears his call and answers.

Scenario 2:
God has Sparky on a leash. Sparky sees a bird and jumps forward. God pulls back on the leash and Sparky whines. Sparky goes home with God, and that is that.

…Which one sounds more appealing now that we have been exposed to free will? Scenario 1, yaay.

I think a common misconception that is often overlooked is the fact that humankind always had free will. It was his intention to do that as we were created in his image. God could’ve created us like mindless robots, but He didn’t becuse that we would not have the capability to bring good to the world, as the world was already perfect, but then why would we need God? It is not in his loving nature to create only to bring glory to himself.

Indeed, he has ‘created’ vessels for honor and vessels for destruction…but only because he knows all, and essentially sees that through freewill in the future they will turn against him.

He cannot make us turn to Him. If we make concious decisions and know that we are turning away from Him, and accept that, when we die he will not make us love Him out of force–because that is not true love, which what He is abundant in and what we were created out of.
That would be more like robot love. :eek:

I hope that helps. 😃
-Bree
 
alexaustralia said:
There is a big problem in stating that God chooses not to create those he foreknows will be “evil”.
Firstly if God foreknows someone, he actually and activily already loves them (remember there is no potency but only act in God). And one could argue that the active manifestation of that love is primarily the creation of that person. Hence if he wishes not to create them he is choosing not to love them. (You can only love those who exist, otherwise the best one can do is love the memory or image of that person). So the proposition actually does not convey a more loving God but a lesser one at best. That is why hell is neccessary, God cannot destroy a person because it is contrary to his love for that person. Some even argue that part of our likeness to God is our indestructability, i.e that we are made eternal (the soul anyways).

Alex
Click to expand...
I’ve considered this possibility, paradoxical and terrifying as it sounds (people go to hell because God loves them). But you put it more persuasively than I have ever put it to myself–particularly the very Thomistic point about foreknowledge. I’m still not sure I buy it, but it merits further consideration.

Edwin
 
alexaustralia said:
There is a big problem in stating that God chooses not to create those he foreknows will be “evil”.
Firstly if God foreknows someone, he actually and activily already loves them (remember there is no potency but only act in God). And one could argue that the active manifestation of that love is primarily the creation of that person. Hence if he wishes not to create them he is choosing not to love them. (You can only love those who exist, otherwise the best one can do is love the memory or image of that person). So the proposition actually does not convey a more loving God but a lesser one at best. That is why hell is neccessary, God cannot destroy a person because it is contrary to his love for that person. Some even argue that part of our likeness to God is our indestructability, i.e that we are made eternal (the soul anyways).

Alex
Click to expand...
I must say that this is one of the first satisfactory answers I have ever heard to this question:thumbsup: But still I think my gripe with this question is just that, a gripe rather than an arguement, and those are worth nothing really.
 
(You can only love those who exist, otherwise the best one can do is love the memory or image of that person)
Click to expand...
I agree one cannot love someone or something that does not exist. There would be no memory or image if it/they did not exist since there is no image of what non-existence would be like. Or rather, there is an infinite number of alternatives of what they might have been like. Which set of alternatives does God chose to love?

It is a contradiction. Arguably even God cannot love that which does not exist since there is nothing to love. The subject or object of that love is not there. It is a totality of absence.

That of course does not deny the love God feels for those He has conceived of but not brought into existence because though not created, they exist to Him. 😉
 
This discussion pursuaded me to register myself with the site, as I believe you have to search for answers, explore all possibilities. I totally and utterly believe in God, and I believe you can logically argue that there is a God, a heaven and a hell. My question is this, is it a good thing? Are we happy that this is the reality and would you change anything if you were God? Would you create anything in the first place? 😦
 
Alterum said:
effects greater good than the nonexistence thereof. To me this seems the necessity.
Click to expand...
I’m personally waxing here, but if they don’t exist they effect nothing nor are they affected, they feel neither elation nor anxiety. One could actually say they are in a default state of contentment though they are not aware of it. It would seem these hypotheticals don’t intrude on the state of existence in any way, but are intruded upon as they no longer can remain in that state.

Non existance can be nothing more than a neutral. Making it not good, is means building to justify a desired end.

Andy 🙂
 
If God only created those people who would go to heaven, what would his revelation to those people be? He couldn’t lie to them, so would he tell them they were all going to heaven? And if so, what does that do to their free will?

EDIT - ah, I see this is an old thread…
 
Receiving Holy Communion in mortal sin OR
Taking the Holy Communion & holding on to it until confessing the mortal sin???
 
It is not the will of God for none go to hell? Conversely, most souls go to hell &
only a few make it to his kingdom. Salvation is a very difficult task unless we
mimic the saints. Its much more than keeping the commandments, its fullfilling the
beautitudes, continuous prayer in your life & much more.
 
joeyvt said:
Receiving Holy Communion in mortal sin OR
Taking the Holy Communion & holding on to it until confessing the mortal sin???
Click to expand...
The correct answer is not to go up for communion at all and to wait until you have gone to confession and then go up to communion after that. 👍

But, that second one you list there is pretty scary. I assume you mean carrying Jesus in your pocket or hand for several hours or probably days. I realize a person might have done this out of ignorance, not knowing that it is wrong. This falls under profanation or sacrilege. Particles of the host would fall and be discarded, or end up going through the washing machine, and the presence of Jesus would be ignored for all that time, most likely. This must not happen. However, the first item ought not happen either. But the second is more horrifying to me.
 
Alterum said:
My immediate response was that the existence of evil people who go to hell effects greater good than the nonexistence thereof. To me this seems the necessity.
Thanks and God bless!
Click to expand...
Your inital responce was correct and should not be changed. Evil and evil people are allowed and permitted to exist because God can and does bring a greater good out of it and that good is namely your sanctification. Suffering and hardships purify and fortify virtue much like how fire purifys Gold, and coal when compressed will produces a diamond. When we suffer these things for the love we have for God we glorify Him way more than if we were to not suffer them at all, and sure while coal is nice diamonds are way better.👍

So yes these people are permitted to exist because God in his infinite wisdom knew that their existance would lead to a greater good than if they didnt exist at all.
 
Pug said:
The correct answer is not to go up for communion at all and to wait until you have gone to confession and then go up to communion after that. 👍

But, that second one you list there is pretty scary. I assume you mean carrying Jesus in your pocket or hand for several hours or probably days. I realize a person might have done this out of ignorance, not knowing that it is wrong. This falls under profanation or sacrilege. Particles of the host would fall and be discarded, or end up going through the washing machine, and the presence of Jesus would be ignored for all that time, most likely. This must not happen. However, the first item ought not happen either. But the second is more horrifying to me.
Click to expand...
PUG

The illustrated purpose of my question are;
A. one receives in mortal sin & confesses later.
B. The other puts the host into a safe place until receiving the sacrament of reconciliation.

WHICH ONE OF THE TWO COMMIT THE GREATER SIN?
 
DeFide said:
From peterkreeft.com/topics/hell.htm:

…Hell follows from two other doctrines: heaven and free will. If there is a heaven, there can be a not-heaven. And if there is free will, we can act on it and abuse it. Those who deny hell must also deny either heaven (as does Western secularism) or free will (as does Eastern pantheism). …

Keep in mind that even those who reject God’s graces are selecting a good, albeit a lesser good, and a good that does not fill the God-shaped hole in our heart that we are meant to fill. Those who select hell are really choosing self. While we are good, being created by God, we are a horrible, horrible substitute for God.

At the root of the question is really, “Why does God create at all, knowing that creatures must necessarily be less than God?”

The short answer is that God wants us to share in his Goodness.
Click to expand...
Your short answer is not correct. The correct answer is: God created all things for Himself. God created all things that they world contribute to His greater glory. Glorifying God causes joy. Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my savior.

Plants, trees, animals… they all contribute to God’s greater glory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top