Why would God create if destined for hell?

[SilentKnight]

As would I. I myself am not in the “red zone” at this point. I hope my posts don’t sound like I am…??

I am frustrated a bit because you keep asserting something that is not compatible with Catholic teaching and you’re doing so in a manner that distinctly makes me feel like I’m being talked down to. And, as I ask questions and attempt to make statements that lead to a step by step demonstration of how your position goes awry, it seems like you keep sidestepping the questions and statements (whether consciously and intentionally or completely unconsciously and unintentionally, I don’t know) in favor of an approach that simply generalizes your thoughts and, like I said, makes me feel like I am being talked down to. But I’m by no means ready to “go to blows” over this. In fact, I was getting ready to respond briefly to your latest by summarizing the problem in a couple sentences and then suggest that maybe we’ll end up having to agree to disagree.

Maybe that’s exactly how I’ll proceed…



SK

 

[quaestio]

I’m going to re-post my earlier comment because the OP felt it brought clarity to his or her concern. A response to what follows would be greatly appreciated.

If God sees the whole of history as a finished painting, then He presently sees Smith murder Jones, fail to repent for it, die in old age, and receive eternal punishment.

Given this account, I think the OP rightly wants to know: why does God bring Smith into being if God simultaneously knows that Smith’s end-point is eternal punishment?

 

[Nullasalus]

As would I. I myself am not in the “red zone” at this point. I hope my posts don’t sound like I am…??

I’m oversensitive to things like this. Too many otherwise like-minded people get into too tense of confrontations. I’m just putting it out there. I don’t mean to sound like I’m talking down to you, but I’ve been responding to some perceived… well, ‘same’. Anyway…

But I’m by no means ready to “go to blows” over this. In fact, I was getting ready to respond briefly to your latest by summarizing the problem in a couple sentences and then suggest that maybe we’ll end up having to agree to disagree.

Maybe that’s exactly how I’ll proceed…

Go for it. I do not see how anything I’ve said goes against Catholic teaching. We know, without a doubt, that God permits evil in this world. I don’t think any Christian teaching could deny this, unless we’re getting into dualistic heresies (The idea that there’s a ‘Good God’ and an ‘Evil God’ warring it out.) The question becomes why. I think I’ve provided a reason, a powerful one, that lends justification to that ‘why’. I want to hear criticisms, but I don’t think what you’ve said so far really are criticisms - they amount to, in my view, ‘God would never allow evil, because evil is evil!’ Well, clearly God does allow it. And this isn’t news to anyone, certainly not Christians (Or Jews, or Muslims, etc.)

 

[onetimeposter]

I’m going to re-post my earlier comment because the OP felt it brought clarity to his or her concern. A response to what follows would be greatly appreciated.

If God sees the whole of history as a finished painting, then He presently sees Smith murder Jones, fail to repent for it, die in old age, and receive eternal punishment.

Given this account, I think the OP rightly wants to know: why does God bring Smith into being if God simultaneously knows that Smith’s end-point is eternal punishment?

Yes, this is what I would like addressed.

 

[SilentKnight]

Nulla,

I dont know about you, but I myself am always trying to gain better, more comprehensive grasps of things in life. Whenever I enter into any sort of debate with someone, I always find myself analyzing my own position as well as theirs throughout the course of the discussion. (And then sometimes for months and months afterwards too. )

As I continue to analyze your argument here, I keep coming to the conclusion that you are mixing some things that need to stay separate and separating some things that need to remain one whole.

As humans, information is irrelevant to our decision about whether or not to regard rape as desirable - it is always something immoral for us to do, period.

Ok. Good start.

God, however, can choose whether or not to permit evils such as rape since God is in the ultimate position of judgment.

Yes. I agree.

You said you weren’t binding God by human standards of morality, but you do so repeatedly.

I think this is one of those areas where you’re taking what I am saying about man and are incorrectly pasting it together with my persepective on God when the two are not the same. Further, I think I understand why you’re viewing the two as one and I have been attempting for a little while now to get you to not jump to improper conclusions. It’s not working yet, I guess.

Here, let me ask you this. You keep saying ‘These things should never have happened.’ If God said to you, ‘Hey, SilentKnight. A whole lot of evil has happened in this world. Now, in the current plan everyone who has ever existed will achieve salvation and justice. But, those evils will always exist in the past. How about I completely wipe out this history and provide another timeline where no evil ever occurs?’ According to the logic you’re giving here, there’s no question: Wipe the timeline. I find that understanding of evil to be ridiculous.

Ok. Let’s stop and concentrate on this because it really, I think, cuts to the heart of the matter.

As you yourself correctly noted recently, we are approaching this scenario on two different plains: God’s and our own. As we both agree, God’s ways are not our own. He is not, for the most part, bound by the same laws we are. And I say “for the most part” rather than simply “He is not” because God cannot be completely arbitrary either. His own behavior is the very foundation from which we construct our own. If God “was allowed” (to use a painfully human and restricted mode of expression) to be completely arbitrary, then, among other things, commandments from Jesus like, “Be ye perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect” would be entirely meaningless.

So, no, God is not bound by the laws with which He binds us. But neither is He free to literally do anything the human mind can conceive. (Again, to make use of created expression to illustrate a divine reality, wherewith something is always going to be lost in translation).

With this as preface, we have three questions in the scenario above, not just one: Are humans allowed to sin? And, is God “allowed” to permit sin? Is God “allowed” to endorse sin? The answer to the first is no. The answer to the second is yes. And the answer to the third is no. He is not. As soon as He does, God becomes the backer of evil, which cannot be.

(Quick side note: The positive answer to the second question and negative answer to the first are not a logical contradiction. They are complementary beliefs because they pertain to two different things, not one and the same thing.)

In the scenario above, what you are implying is that because so much good ended up happening subsequent, and maybe even consequent, to all the sins, in the end, it is judged “better” than a world in which no sin ever took place. To make use of a point system to illustrate, in this world, perhaps 20 points of evil have happened, but because 50 points of good happened after and maybe because of that, this is much more desirable than a world in which there are no evil points and only 5 points of good. By this token, if a world were possible in which 500 points of good were realized, persuant to 350 points of evil - beautiful!! This world would have the most total good of all.

Your implicit argument then, is that the ends justify the means. Because there are 50 points of good in this world and only 5 in the other, this world is better. Simpy false. The “best” world for both God and man is the one in which the least amount of sin is committed. Best for both God, man collectively, and the individual sinner.

You’re right. My answer to this extremely hypothetical scenario is to wipe out the timeline if what that means is that men and women freely choose in the alternate world to do no evil at all. I’m not talking about God creating a world in which evil is not permitted to take place. I’m talking about a world in which evil does not, by free choice. It is critical that you understand the difference. Permitting and endorsing are two completely different things. This is one of the areas where we’re getting hung up.

There’s no contradiction here. There are two perspectives in play: God’s, and our own. For us, rape is always an evil event. It’s a commandment of God, and even if good comes from it, it remains an evil - we can’t justify it through the ends.

God is in a different position. To God, rape can always be an evil. But God is under no commandment and is capable of truly seeing ends. There exists an apparent dilemma, whereby forbidding evil from ever being realized in the world will lead to the forsaking of quite a lot of good.

Bingo. Stop here. There are a couple of pieces of very ripe material in the bolded section here.

It must be realize that we are dealing with two separate issues here, not one. The first is God permitting evil and the second is evil being a “necessary” means to good ends. Not only do I agree that God “can” permit evil in the world, He “should”. He “has to”. (Again, as a reminder, making use of limited human language to illustrate.) If evil is not permitted, then there is no such thing as free will. No such thing as free will means no such thing as love because love is a free choice for the good. No love means no communion between God and man. (“God is love and he who lives in love lives in God” 1 John tells us.)

But God permitting evil and God endorsing it, once again, are two separate things. God can permit evil. He cannot endorse it.

At this point, I am guessing you would probably agree with me when I say that but then want to immediately qualify the assertion by stating that God is not bound by the same rules that we are. Again, I agree. But then what that translates to in your mind is different from what it translates to in mine. What that translates to in your mind - it seems - is that if there were five possible scenarios that existed in creation: a world with 0 evil points and 5 good points, one with 5 evil and 20 good, one with 100 evil and 500 good, one with 1000 evil points and 2000 good, and one even, heck, with 10,000 evil points and 5,000 good, by far the “best choice” for God would be to create the last world because, in the end, it’s the one with the most good points in it.

Now, if human existence were only about “points” and nothing else, I’d be tempted to agree with you. But since it’s not and what “evil points” translate to are, say, 10,000 separate acts of evil, despite the fact that 1000 times more total good comes from this last world than from the first, the “right” choice for all, including God, is the first one.

(Please note, the choices are not an issue of God actively preventing the 10,000 evil acts in last world in order to come up with the first. In all five scenarios, everyone is completely free to choose as they please. Please do not fail to note this or it will ruin your understanding of the point I am trying to make.)

If you wish to call this perspective “ridiculous”, you may. But you do the same then to our past Holy Father’s encyclical which asserts that the ends do not justify the means.

You’ve set a standard for God whereby none of us should exist, because our world has evil in it and it would be better for no evil to ever exist, no matter how temporary, no matter how many people are doomed to the void. So from my perspective, I’m defending the existence of all people in this world - you’re defending their effective annihilation.

Rather, what the two of us seem to be advocating is for all the sin that has happened versus against all the sin that has happened because it is just that - sin, an afront to God, no matter how much good might come of it in the end. I cannot and do not advocate the “annihilation” of a people that never existed.

It remains entirely compatible. Evil is always evil - at most, it is a necessary evil. Good coming from evil does not make evil ‘good’. At most, it makes evil justifiable.

And when evil itself is “justifiable”, rather than merely tolerated or permitted, it is no longer evil. Evil is never “justifiable”. God permitting evil to exist is.

I hope that after this…eh…“brief two sentence summary” I have served the purpose of clarity, rather further any confusion.

Peace,

SK

 

[SilentKnight]

I’m oversensitive to things like this. Too many otherwise like-minded people get into too tense of confrontations.

I agree. No worries. I myself used to be quite the “dart thrower” back in my “less mature” days. Not to say that I am now flawless, but the Lord has brought me a long ways, which I am thankful for. It’s now a lot easier for me to just discuss stuff and let it lie. Would that this were the case for more posters throughout the world wide web.

Go for it. I do not see how anything I’ve said goes against Catholic teaching. We know, without a doubt, that God permits evil in this world. I don’t think any Christian teaching could deny this, unless we’re getting into dualistic heresies (The idea that there’s a ‘Good God’ and an ‘Evil God’ warring it out.) The question becomes why.

Yes.

I think I’ve provided a reason, a powerful one, that lends justification to that ‘why’. I want to hear criticisms, but I don’t think what you’ve said so far really are criticisms - they amount to, in my view, ‘God would never allow evil, because evil is evil!’ Well, clearly God does allow it. And this isn’t news to anyone, certainly not Christians (Or Jews, or Muslims, etc.)

And here you may have just done what I was purporting to do in my last post and failed at…immensely.

Perhaps our biggest and maybe even only snag after all this time, I just now am realizing, is in the definition of a single word: “permit”. Maybe not. We’ll see…

To permit means to “allow” (viz a viz God allowing a rape to happen). It also can mean to “endorse” (God saying, “Yes! Rape is ‘permitted’. It’s fine. Perfectly acceptable”).

Of course, God allows evil to happen. And the answer to why is because the possibility of the commission of an evil act is integral to freedom of will.

To tie this back in now to the OP, would your summary answer to the OP, by any chance, be, "God allows people to exist that are destined for hell because free will is essential to our communion with God? Take away free will and, with it, the possibility of hell and you take away human life, basically???

SK

 

[Nullasalus]

Perhaps our biggest and maybe even only snag after all this time, I just now am realizing, is in the definition of a single word: “permit”. Maybe not. We’ll see…

To permit means to “allow” (viz a viz God allowing a rape to happen). It also can mean to “endorse” (God saying, “Yes! Rape is ‘permitted’. It’s fine. Perfectly acceptable”).

Of course, God allows evil to happen. And the answer to why is because the possibility of the commission of an evil act is integral to freedom of will.

Again, my stance here has nothing to do with the existence of free will. I suppose it can be entirely compatible with a view of creation where libertarian free will is integral, but I’d also argue it’s just as compatible with a view where compatiblist free will is assumed.

But no - I do not believe God endorses rape. I think God would view the evils permitted as a necessity. Unfortunate ones, lamentable ones, ones that will require judgment and addressing in time. The alternative to disallowing the evil we’re discussing is, to me, actually the more evil/less benevolent option.

To tie this back in now to the OP, would your summary answer to the OP, by any chance, be, "God allows people to exist that are destined for hell because free will is essential to our communion with God? Take away free will and, with it, the possibility of hell and you take away human life, basically???

SK

No. More like, “God allows people to exist that are destined for hell because allowing evil is essential to the introduction of many worthy persons.” I know free will is popularly cited in this debate, but it’s really not one I’m making here. I think free will can certainly be a consideration, but at most it’s one in addition to what I’m positing.

 

[SilentKnight]

Again, my stance here has nothing to do with the existence of free will.

…Oh…sigh…Ok…

I suppose it can be entirely compatible with a view of creation where libertarian free will is integral, but I’d also argue it’s just as compatible with a view where compatiblist free will is assumed.

Sorry, one more time. Not aware of what libertarian and compatiblist free will are.



I need to go back to school…Wait a minute…I am back in school…I need to pay attention better…

But no - I do not believe God endorses rape. I think God would view the evils permitted as a necessity. Unfortunate ones, lamentable ones, ones that will require judgment and addressing in time. The alternative to disallowing the evil we’re discussing is, to me, actually the more evil/less benevolent option.

If something is accurately labeled a “necessity”, it is by definition, disqualified as a sin.

No. More like, “God allows people to exist that are destined for hell because allowing evil is essential to the introduction of many worthy persons.” I know free will is popularly cited in this debate, but it’s really not one I’m making here. I think free will can certainly be a consideration, but at most it’s one in addition to what I’m positing.

To the bolded section: …Oh.

SK

 

[Nullasalus]

Sorry, one more time. Not aware of what libertarian and compatiblist free will are.

Basically, libertarian means we’re truly ‘free’ - the world is indeterministic, and for most choices we make, we could have conceivably chosen otherwise.

Compatiblist means that our actions are in large part predetermined, but we still have ‘free will’ in the sense, in the lack of constraining conditions (someone aiming a gun at our head, etc), we still make choices and those choices are our own.

If something is accurately labeled a “necessity”, it is by definition, disqualified as a sin.

Yes, but this is from the perspective of God, and God’s knowledge, will, and nature is (in my view) essential to his allowing evil. A human lacks all three of these things, and thus can’t regard such evil as a necessity. God permitting evil and a human doing evil are very different things.

Study hard and all that, I’ve not been in school awhile myself.

 

[gavanhe]

I’m the OP and allot of people have completely missed the point of my question and it, as far as I can tell, has not been adequately addressed.

It may be that we need to accept that some things in our lives and beliefs will remain a mystery to us mere mortals.
As in many ways the Trinity is a mystery to us, so is the understanding of omniscience and omnipotence. This none the less does not preclude Our Lord from having His purpose in His creation and our lack of understanding.
It still behoves us to attempt at an understanding without necessarily arriving at the correct conclusions.
Some of foregoing post have a kernel of truth, but it remains almost impossible to arrive at an answer definitive and satisfactory to all.
Gerry

 

[bullfrog543]

i started a new article to understand more now about sin / to have adam and eve exist still would mean repetitiveness that of which is in hell to teach them from right or wrong

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=254293

 

[onetimeposter]

It may be that we need to accept that some things in our lives and beliefs will remain a mystery to us mere mortals.
As in many ways the Trinity is a mystery to us, so is the understanding of omniscience and omnipotence. This none the less does not preclude Our Lord from having His purpose in His creation and our lack of understanding.
It still behoves us to attempt at an understanding without necessarily arriving at the correct conclusions.
Some of foregoing post have a kernel of truth, but it remains almost impossible to arrive at an answer definitive and satisfactory to all.
Gerry

So I am seeing.

 

[KingAlfred]

If God is all good, all loving and all powerful. If God knows how a person’s entire life will play out, why would God create a life if he knows the person will make choices that will send them to hell?

God creates a life, knowing that the person will reject him, knowing that the person will not repent and knowing that the person will condemn themselves to hell.

Why would an all good and all loving God create lives that He knows for certain will end up in hell for all of eternity?

Wouldn’t the loving and good thing to do, would be not to create the life in the first place, knowing that they will not have to face an eternity in hell?

The issue and theme of predestination is a bit ‘sticky’. Our doctrine of free will suggests there is no predestination. Yet the idea of determinism suggests that if we act on our free will properly, God’s plan for us ‘kicks in’, and off we go. Some interpret God’s stewardship as a long-range plan for our lives. Others interpret it as God constantly fighting to keep us on the right azimuth as we navigate life, replete with its countless challenges. It’s not an easy issue to resolve, and there isn’t clear-cut agreement within the Church. I guess the Catechism would offer the closest thing to a definite answer.

 

[n2thelight]

Why would an all good and all loving God create lives that He knows for certain will end up in hell for all of eternity?

It is my opinion that God does not know who will in, the end choose Him.Let me explain why.We were never meant to be made flesh,had satan not rebelled,we would not have been.

We are here to make a choice,the choice being who shall we follow,God or satan,now comes the part many will find hard to believe.

We made that choice in the past,in the first earth age,some of us followed satan then and some of us did not,but we were all required to be born of woman with no remembrance of that time,to make that choice again.

My point in all of this is to say,had He known what choice we would make He would have destroyed those who followed satan the first time.

And please don’t think Im talking about some kind of reincarnation

 

[john_doran]

The definition of a possible world is one which does not entail a logical contradiction. The two propositions by SeekingCatholic do not contain an explicit contradiction. The only assumption about these worlds is stated explicitly. There can be no “hidden” contradiction, because there are no other assumptions.

the contradiction doesn’t have to in the terms - it need only be entailed by them.

ateista:

You agree that the world proposed by SeekingCatholic “may” be logically possible. Obviously you cannot point out a contradiction, because if you could, you would have done it. So you hide behind the idea, that “since we are not omniscient, we cannot decide if a proposition is without a contradiction”.

it “may” be logically possible only in the sense that it may turn out that the argument for its not being possible turns out to be wrong.

and if i’m “hiding” behind anything, it’s behind my simple refusal to type out plantinga’s entire modal argument for transworld depravity. if either you or SeekingCatholic care enough, you can get The Nature of Necessity and read it a few times and then we can talk about it.

ateista:

The lack of omniscience does not mean that we are totally ignorant, that we cannot decide the true-false-null value of any proposition. If we cannot point out a contradiction, then there is no contradiction.

ok, i’ll bite: where’s the contradiction in the proposition “there is no possible world (in the vicinity of the actual world) in which every free agent always chooses rightly”?

ateista:

You cannot bring up an example, where there is no apparent, explicit contradiction, but there is a “hidden” contradiction, can you? If you could, that would lend credence to your argument.

i have already: Frege’s begriffsschrift. the proposition “everything is expressible in terms of sets” seems fine on the face of it. it took one guy to figure out that it is, in fact, contradictory.

 

[SilentKnight]

"SilentKnight:

If something is accurately labeled a “necessity”, it is by definition, disqualified as a sin.

Yes, but this is from the perspective of God, and God’s knowledge, will, and nature is (in my view) essential to his allowing evil. A human lacks all three of these things, and thus can’t regard such evil as a necessity. God permitting evil and a human doing evil are very different things.

Yes. But…

1. There are some things that are different for man than they are for God and other things that are one and the same. If the commission of a particular act is a sin for a person, for example, then it is perceived as a sin by God also.
2. We must distinguish between the ability to choose evil and a given chosen evil. Yes, free will is necessary. Even if it means that some people will abuse their free will and do evil things with it. It is necessary because that is the only path to union with God - love; love being a free choice for good.

Free will is not necessary because God has a “final plan” in place that mandates that some evil happen in order to make sure that plan is realized. Such a plan would disqualify sin as sin since those sins were “necessary”. How can a punishable offense be a punishable offense if it is mandated and essential for the fulfilling of some grand plan? “You shouldn’t have done that and now I’m going to punish you for it, but you needed to otherwise abc wouldn’t have been able to take place so I’m glad you did.”

??? ???

Either you shouldn’t have done it or you should have. Not even divinity can make that logical consistency go away…

Study hard and all that, I’ve not been in school awhile myself.

I’m trying. Finally finishing up my Associates degree after all these years. It’s fun in some ways, but taxing in others. Can’t wait to move on to bachelor’s stuff and can wait even less to be all finished with it.

Peace,

SK

 

[onetimeposter]

It is my opinion that God does not know who will in, the end choose Him.Let me explain why.We were never meant to be made flesh,had satan not rebelled,we would not have been.

We are here to make a choice,the choice being who shall we follow,God or satan,now comes the part many will find hard to believe.

We made that choice in the past,in the first earth age,some of us followed satan then and some of us did not,but we were all required to be born of woman with no remembrance of that time,to make that choice again.

My point in all of this is to say,had He known what choice we would make He would have destroyed those who followed satan the first time.

And please don’t think Im talking about some kind of reincarnation

God lives outside of time and space…he knows all and see’s all,is all powerful.

If you suggest that God could not have known that man would choose sin…then you are limiting God’s power.

By limiting God’s power you are saying that God is not omnipotent and is not omniscient.

 

[ateista]

the contradiction doesn’t have to in the terms - it need only be entailed by them.

Ok.

and if i’m “hiding” behind anything, it’s behind my simple refusal to type out plantinga’s entire modal argument for transworld depravity. if either you or SeekingCatholic care enough, you can get The Nature of Necessity and read it a few times and then we can talk about it.

If you refer to the Plantinga’s modal ontological argument, then I am familiar with it, and don’t accept it. Generally speaking I am not impressed with his concepts.

My question is: “Is there any specific reason to doubt that it is possible that all humans always choose rightly?”. Specific, and not just “maybe”. If you do not wish to go into details, that is fine. You can always say: “because I said so”, or because “Plantinga said so”. Of course don’t be surprised if such an answer will be dismissed as insufficient.

ok, i’ll bite: where’s the contradiction in the proposition “there is no possible world (in the vicinity of the actual world) in which every free agent always chooses rightly”?

There is no logical contradiction there. It is simply an unsubstantiated assertion. You assert that “there is no…”. Such an assertion should at least be substantiated, preferably proven. To say that “maybe” it leads to logical contradiction is not enough.

The negation of your proposition is: “There is a possible world where each free agent always chooses rightly”. Insofar it is also unsubstantiated as is, so I will give you a reason why it must be true.

We know that there is a possible world where some people sometimes choose rightly. This is our world. The right “choice” is free, that is: it is not contingent on anything. According to Catholics there are at least two humans who always chose rightly, namely Jesus and Mary.

So now we know that it is not logically impossible to have at least some people who always choose rightly. (In one of your posts you agreed to this.)

Now, if the choices are free, then they cannot depend on someone else’s hypothetical “wrong” choice. Therefore to have someone who always chooses “rightly” is not logically dependent on someone else chosing “wrongly”. In other words, the choices are logically independent. Therefore it is logically possible that everyone always makes the “right” choice.

To deny that would lead to the absurdity that “my freedom to choose rightly” is contingent upon “you choosing wrongly”. And, no, please don’t say that sometimes a “right” choice would not available if someone else did not make a “wrong” choice. That particular “right” choice may not be available, but that does not eliminate all the other possible “right” choices (among which doing nothing is one).

And finally a specific example: If all humans were carbon copies of Jesus and Mary, or if God would have only created Jesus and Mary… that would be a world where all the people would choose rightly all the time.

i have already: Frege’s begriffsschrift. the proposition “everything is expressible in terms of sets” seems fine on the face of it. it took one guy to figure out that it is, in fact, contradictory.

Very well. I accept that it is possible that some propositions do not have an obvious contradiction, but may lead to one, if one follows the the logical path and examines the corollaries. (If one plays fast and loose with the universal operator, one can reach all sorts of nice contradictions.)

Now, from that do you generalize that all propositions may lead to a contradiction if we follow their corollaries? Or only some of them?

If you would say that all propositions may lead to a contradiction, then your position would be called “universal skepticism”. I doubt that you would subscribe to it, but maybe I am wrong. If you would say that only some propositions may lead to logical contradictions, then how do you decide which ones are this kind?

As a secondary question: the concept of “possible world” is nonsensical if one cannot decide whether a specific world is “possible or not”. What method is there to make this decision?

 

[mja2]

Why would he bring an eternal spirit, a soul, into existence that is doomed to go to Hell? He knows before He creates it because He is omniscient that it will make the choices that will condemn him or her eternally to suffer in remorse, hate and pain. Only by the grace He profers through Christ can a person come to obedience and sanctification, does it make sense the grace to respond is withheld from the doomed? Don’t tell me we can’t see the divine plan, this really bothers me, my whole life I’ve met people I know are probably doomed by their behaviour but their cultures and philosophies don’t condemn it. They reject Christ outright and it is cultural conditioning and reflex to do so but they are basically good people. There has to be one path, the Holy Roman Catholic Church and not a synchretism that will reconcile all beliefs if there isn’t I’m a fool and so are you. Why would billions of people be created and left out?

 

[Nullasalus]

Yes. But…

1. There are some things that are different for man than they are for God and other things that are one and the same. If the commission of a particular act is a sin for a person, for example, then it is perceived as a sin by God also.

I disagree. And this is exactly what I meant by ‘binding God to human morality’. Let me be clear about this: I regard God as good. Maximally good. But I think the virtue and nature of God’s position entails permitting some evil in the world. The evil itself is not celebrated, the evil itself is not something anyone is happy about. But the alternative is not acceptable.

1. We must distinguish between the ability to choose evil and a given chosen evil. Yes, free will is necessary. Even if it means that some people will abuse their free will and do evil things with it. It is necessary because that is the only path to union with God - love; love being a free choice for good.

I’m very hesitant to get into free will arguments here. But I have no objection here that I can see.

Free will is not necessary because God has a “final plan” in place that mandates that some evil happen in order to make sure that plan is realized. Such a plan would disqualify sin as sin since those sins were “necessary”. How can a punishable offense be a punishable offense if it is mandated and essential for the fulfilling of some grand plan? “You shouldn’t have done that and now I’m going to punish you for it, but you needed to otherwise abc wouldn’t have been able to take place so I’m glad you did.”

But, I didn’t argue the necessity of free will like that. In fact, I said my views are compatible with whatever view on free will is chosen. And I’ll repeat: It may well be a punishable offense because given acts are both are once are themselves punishable, while at the same time necessary to be permitted by God.

Either you shouldn’t have done it or you should have. Not even divinity can make that logical consistency go away…

There’s no logical inconsistency; in this case, the agent knows there’s a commandment against it. They likely know that what they are doing is wrong. They even realize that it may merit dire punishment. But they choose to do it anyway. God’s allowing them that freedom to do what they’re doing is necessary by my view. God knows that they can/will do what they’re doing. But the decision remains their own.

Let me ask you - what do you see as the alternative? Universal salvation? Frankly, I’m not instinctively opposed to views like that. Again, Fr. Neuhaus says that we may pray hell is empty. I’d add, we may pray that even eternal hell may confer a bearable existence to those in it, even though some kind of punishment may be eternal as well. The argument I’ve outlined works better against evil than it does against damnation, though I think there’s some consideration there as well.

That does open up another door, though. Assume damnation can be as I suggested: Eternal, punishing, but bearable. An endurable existence. Is it better to hope that anyone who would end up there never exist? That, to me, introduces another dilemma, and I can imagine someone arguing that, no, it’s not better.