Why you don't love your children

[lumendelumine]

• Hell exists & is eternal suffering

And also Heaven and eternal joy.
Hell is chosen by the individual.
Heaven is received by the Grace of God.

• If we aren’t born, we have a 0% chance of going to hell.

You don’t seem to see the philosophical implications of non-existence. You can’t compare non-existence and existence. They are on two completely different planes. It’s not “better for the kids” not to be conceived and born. There simply are no kids in that case.

“Better” always supposes some benefit. Something or someone that does not exist simply cannot benefit from anything, because benefit presupposes existence.

This is really the major flaw of your argument.

• If we are born, we have a 50% chance of going to hell.

No. Heaven and Hell is not a gambling game. It depends on choices. It’s like choosing to jump out of the window or not. It’s not like playing Russian roulette.

And how do you know the statistics anyway? Do you know how many people (of all ever conceived) are in Heaven or in Hell, respectively?

• So every parent decides to gamble with the soul of their child, by removing them from Total Safety (0%) and bringing them into Total Uncertainty. (50%)

As I have said above:

• Something that doesn’t exist cannot be safe or in danger.
• Children have their own free will. It’s not about uncertainty (=fatalism), it’s about choices.

• But if you gamble by conceiving, you don’t love your children

By conceiving children, we participate in the loving act of God Who created Mankind. God did “gamble” quite a lot by creating Mankind, don’t you think? With Original Sin and all that…
Because He “unfortunately” wanted to create free beings, not puppets. “Unfortunately”, we also bring free beings into the world, not puppets. Would you prefer being a puppet?

• Because love is selfless, and love is kind

See John 3:16.

• And gambling with a life that isn’t yours and doesn’t ask to be born is selfish

The only one who “gambles” with his/her life is the one who is born, because he/she is a free being. And being a free being means responsibility for oneself and for others. “Unfortunately.”
But of course, one may also make others responsible for one’s own choices and reject responsibility. Well, that’s what I’d call selfish…

 

[Revelation13_16]

You don’t seem to see the philosophical implications of non-existence. You can’t compare non-existence and existence. They are on two completely different planes. It’s not “better for the kids” not to be conceived and born. There simply are no kids in that case.

“Better” always supposes some benefit. Something or someone that does not exist simply cannot benefit from anything, because benefit presupposes existence.

No existence = no pain
existence = pain

Now you exist, and you’ve felt both pain and no pain, which is better?

This is really the major flaw of your argument.

No, it’s not.

The Atheist fears nothing because in death he will cease to exist, and that beats the heck out of burning forever.

No. Heaven and Hell is not a gambling game. It depends on choices. It’s like choosing to jump out of the window or not. It’s not like playing Russian roulette.

And how do you know the statistics anyway? Do you know how many people (of all ever conceived) are in Heaven or in Hell, respectively?

I’ve answered this above.

As I have said above:

• Something that doesn’t exist cannot be safe or in danger.
• Children have their own free will. It’s not about uncertainty (=fatalism), it’s about choices.

Have you read St. Augustine?

By conceiving children, we participate in the loving act of God Who created Mankind. God did “gamble” quite a lot by creating Mankind, don’t you think? With Original Sin and all that…
Because He “unfortunately” wanted to create free beings, not puppets. “Unfortunately”, we also bring free beings into the world, not puppets. Would you prefer being a puppet?

1. God can do what he wants because he has infinite means and wisdom.
2. You don’t.

See John 3:16.

Exactly, God gave you his Son, why don’t you return the favour and give him your life 24/7 instead of making God share you with your spouse and kids?

All that time on family vacations could be spent evangelizing African tribes or helping homeless people

Face it, marriage and procreation is selfish.

The only one who “gambles” with his/her life is the one who is born, because he/she is a free being.

Kids don’t ask to be born, their parents make that decision for them, and then only when it’s too late and they are an adult do they realize that suicide is wrong.

So:

A) They didn’t choose to join the game.
B) They can’t choose to leave the game.

Think about that, our parents decide our entry, God/fate decides our exit.

Just because we might make choices in the middle, are we really free?

And being a free being means responsibility for oneself and for others. “Unfortunately.”
But of course, one may also make others responsible for one’s own choices and reject responsibility. Well, that’s what I’d call selfish…

1. If God’s grace led you to the truth, you didn’t choose it, you’re effectively a Marionette.
2. If God’s grace leads some to truth, then maybe as Augustine & Calvin thought, it leads others away. (hell)

I think most people who disagree with this logical sequence are just selfish and biases, they want kids and that’s it.

God Bless,
Rev

 

[exiled]

Why did God create us? Out of love, right? Do we think, that in His Divine Foreknowledge that He knew what would happen in the garden? I think He did, and He created us anyway, out of love. His definition and practice of love is absolutely better than my definition/practice of love is, so all that is left for me to do is* imitate *Him. We cooperate in the creation of life as He ordained it within marriage, the rest of it is up to Him, and the free will of the created. He did not save us from ourselves in the beginning, nor does He save us from ourselves now, because love demands the freedom to reciprocate that love. Preventing someone else from sinning is not a reason to commit a sin yourself, i.e. artificial contraception, abortion, etc. If a man and a woman choose hell for themselves in an effort to protect the one child they prevented from going to by never giving that child life, how does that further glorify God? Two people instead of one lose Heaven.
He also became Man, He was born. Why did He do such a thing knowing (again) how He would be rejected, blasphemed, etc. even after His Gift of Suffering? To show us what is means to love, to give us an example to follow, and, of course, to open the gates of Heaven to all men.
Rev, I’ve read many of your posts, and I think you have a great capacity for wisdom and understanding, and I think you are open to the Truth. The magnificence of what God has given us in the marriage covenant, how it is ordered to reflect the life-giving union of Jesus Christ and His Church it truly fascinating. The union of flesh and blood is fruitful and it multiplies, just as the union of our flesh and blood with the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ brings forth a new, eternal life, that goes out into that world and brings more people to Him.

 

[lumendelumine]

No existence = no pain
existence = pain

Now you exist, and you’ve felt both pain and no pain, which is better?

No. Existence=pain/no pain
Non-Existence=nothing

The Atheist fears nothing because in death he will cease to exist, and that beats the heck out of burning forever.

Yes, he fears nothing because he will not be held accountable for what he did. But he has already existed and only does not want to get away from a possible punishment. That’s quite different from never having existed at all.

Have you read St. Augustine?

Yes. St. Augustine never denied free will and never said that God positively predestined people to Hell without them being able to do anything about it - that was Calvin. (See here: St. Augustine on Grace.)

1. God can do what he wants because he has infinite means and wisdom.

1. You don’t.

What’s this to do with what I have said? So you’re saying, God has the right to create human beings, because He’s infinitely… etc., while I haven’t? Aren’t there people who make reproaches to God (and not to their parents) because they have been born? Where is the difference?

What I’ve been saying was that responsibility for one’s own life and one’s eternaly destiny lies entirely with the person (and God) - not with the person’s parents.

Exactly, God gave you his Son, why don’t you return the favour and give him your life 24/7 instead of making God share you with your spouse and kids?

God did not call everyone to celibacy. Marriage is a sacrament, it’s a participation in the mystery of the Trinity and the relationship between Christ and His Church. One can serve God in many ways.

All that time on family vacations could be spent evangelizing African tribes or helping homeless people

The first place for evangelization is always in the home. The first people one evangelizes are one own children. God calls most people in their everyday life, in the family, on the workplace.

Face it, marriage and procreation is selfish.

I still don’t understand what you mean by selfish. Giving another person the possibility to exist is selfish how?

Kids don’t ask to be born, their parents make that decision for them, and then only when it’s too late and they are an adult do they realize that suicide is wrong.

So:

A) They didn’t choose to join the game.
B) They can’t choose to leave the game.

Think about that, our parents decide our entry, God/fate decides our exit.

Ok, so the problem is not with the parents. It’s with God. (Otherwise how would the realize that “suicide is wrong” and that you “can’t choose to leave”?)

Just because we might make choices in the middle, are we really free?

Yes, because our free will, our response to God’s grace, determine where we are heading.

1. If God’s grace led you to the truth, you didn’t choose it, you’re effectively a Marionette.

The idea of irresistible Grace is Calvinism/Jansenism. Our freedom also extends to being able to reject God’s grace and His mercy. So no, God’s Grace does not impede free will.

1. If God’s grace leads some to truth, then maybe as Augustine & Calvin thought, it leads others away. (hell)

God’s salvational will extends to all people (this is also what Augustine said). He only realizes one out of infinitely great possibilities for the economy of grace. So He already knows the outcome (and thus determines it in a way), because He knows how we will choose, what Graces He will grant us, if we will accept them or not etc.

As St. Augustine said: “Who are the elect? You, if you wish it"!” We don’t see God’s overall plan, but by the way we are moving and choosing, we are already realizing His plan for us.

So no, God does not send anyone to Hell. He just respects our freedom, which also includes the freedom to reject His mercy until the very last moment (that’s the famous “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit”) and remain unrepentant. .

I think most people who disagree with this logical sequence are just selfish and biases, they want kids and that’s it.

I understand that you are bitter and obviously in a great crisis (asking yourself why you were born in the first place? struggling with God?).

I’ll be praying for you and your intentions.

 

[Revelation13_16]

Why did God create us? Out of love, right? Do we think, that in His Divine Foreknowledge that He knew what would happen in the garden? I think He did, and He created us anyway, out of love. His definition and practice of love is absolutely better than my definition/practice of love is, so all that is left for me to do is* imitate *Him. We cooperate in the creation of life as He ordained it within marriage, the rest of it is up to Him, and the free will of the created. He did not save us from ourselves in the beginning, nor does He save us from ourselves now, because love demands the freedom to reciprocate that love.

exiled, I’m not touching this because it opens up a Pandora’s Box concerning Free Will & Supralapsarianism, and I’ve already had that discussion with Contarini in my thread about Free Will.

Preventing someone else from sinning is not a reason to commit a sin yourself, i.e. artificial contraception, abortion, etc.
If a man and a woman choose hell for themselves in an effort to protect the one child they prevented from going to by never giving that child life, how does that further glorify God? Two people instead of one lose Heaven.

Choose God, Choose Celibacy.

He also became Man, He was born. Why did He do such a thing knowing (again) how He would be rejected, blasphemed, etc. even after His Gift of Suffering? To show us what is means to love, to give us an example to follow, and, of course, to open the gates of Heaven to all men.

Everyone keeps saying this but I think it proves my case rather than the opposite.

Christ gave up heaven to suffer and die for us, yet how many people give up their marriage & parental “rights” for God to become Monks, Priests, & Nuns?

It just seems like a great deal of us want our cake and to eat it also, even though God tells us that this isn’t really life, yet 99% of the world seems intent on building their happiness here.

Rev, I’ve read many of your posts, and I think you have a great capacity for wisdom and understanding, and I think you are open to the Truth.

I am, I was going to go to Mass today but I got there an hour early.

Nevertheless I prayed to God in the Catholic Church to guide me to the truth.

We’ll see.

The magnificence of what God has given us in the marriage covenant, how it is ordered to reflect the life-giving union of Jesus Christ and His Church it truly fascinating. The union of flesh and blood is fruitful and it multiplies, just as the union of our flesh and blood with the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ brings forth a new, eternal life, that goes out into that world and brings more people to Him.

I disagree mon ami.

I think if you get two people who are married and have 2 kids and you compare them to two celebant missionaries, the two celebant missionaries easily will save more souls than the 2 parents who spend all their time looking after their family primarily.

Here’s a Catholic example for you, I think you’ll like it.

A Protestant Pastor and a Catholic Priest are having lunch in a restaurant during World War 2, a bomb drops not far, both men get up.
The Protestant Pastor says “I’ve got to get to my wife and kids and look after them”, the Catholic Priest says “I’ve got to get to my flock and look after them”.

Now I - as a Protestant - can truly see the truth in that.

St. Peter took his wife on his travels and Peter only wrote two epistles. Paul was celebant and wrote half of the New Testament.

You can imagine, that those lonely nights that Paul spent writing his epistles, Peter was with his family.

Now I don’t want to judge Peter, but I don’t buy the fact that a married couple can further the word of God more than a celebant person, Paul even says this, a person who’s celebant will live for God, while the married will live for each other.

I just can’t see the logic in breeding when if you give your life to God, not only do you benefit, God benefits, but you also don’t risk bringing any more souls into the world that may go to hell.

Everyone wins.

God Bless,
Rev

 

[mercygate]

Being a child of God in the full sense of the word entails choices; it is not an automatic condition of being born. Children of God enjoy the freedom and dignity of loving him – or not. The choice is part of our dignity. Nobody is predestined for damnation.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Cathars.

CDL

 

[Tonks40]

Exactly, God gave you his Son, why don’t you return the favour and give him your life 24/7 instead of making God share you with your spouse and kids?

All that time on family vacations could be spent evangelizing African tribes or helping homeless people

Face it, marriage and procreation is selfish.

By this logic, then the marriage of Joseph and Mary their “choice” to raise Jesus in a family was selfish.

Our lives as human beings are limited to what we can do here on earth. To give preference to one vocation over another (religious vs. marriage/family) is a choice each individual makes with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That does not mean that a religious life is better than the life dedicated to raising a family. BOTH are important - BOTH have their roles in building up the Church, the Body of Christ. BOTH can AND SHOULD dedicate their lives to Christ.

Try to see and appreciate the balance in both vocations.

 

[Revelation13_16]

Non-Existence=nothing

nothing = no thing.

How can “no thing” feel pain?

It can’t.

Therefore, nothing = no pain.

I’d rather be a nothing than a something in hell.

Yes, he fears nothing … having existed at all.

Same thing.

If there is no God and the atheist lives life and then ceases to exist, all his memory of life and who he was is gone, so it’s as if he never existed in the first place.

Yes. St. Augustine never denied free will and never said that God positively predestined people to Hell without them being able to do anything about it - that was Calvin.

Where do you think Calvin got most of his ideas?

One early debate involving the matter of predestination was conducted between Augustine of Hippo and Pelagius. In fact, Augustine originally taught John Calvin’s five-point system of predestination. Augustine taught that man has nothing to do with his own salvation. Man has inherited the totally depraved nature of Adam and Eve to the point they are spiritually incapable of availing themselves of God’s grace, he further contended. As a result of the depraved Adamic nature being inherited, babies are born in sin and with a sinful nature. Augustine argued that the only way any are saved is by God intervening and choosing some whom he calls his elect to be saved. This choosing is totally arbitrary and independent of those chosen. Those thus chosen, cannot ever be lost or fall from grace. To the converse, those not arbitrarily chosen before the foundation of the world to everlasting life are irrevocably doomed to hell, having absolutely no hope of salvation, regardless of what they do or do not do. Such a doctrine as formulated by Augustine constitutes true “Calvinism” today.

link

What’s this to do with what I have said? So you’re saying, God has the right to create human beings, because He’s infinitely… etc., while I haven’t?

Yes.

Aren’t there people who make reproaches to God (and not to their parents) because they have been born? Where is the difference?

I used to think like this.

And then I looked at the world and realized, it wasn’t God’s fault for all this, it was man’s.

Man corrupts everything, and yet he keeps breeding.

God created us for a perfect world with him, where there was no hell.

We don’t live in that perfect world anymore, and we know there’s a hell, but we freely breed and pass on this horrible world and responsiblity to our children whom we claim to love?

Give me a break, Augustine & Calvin were right, man is totally depraved if he believes that.

What I’ve been saying was that responsibility for one’s own life and one’s eternaly destiny lies entirely with the person (and God) - not with the person’s parents.

Yes, once they are born it’s their responsibility.

But who’s fault is it that they are born?

One can serve God in many ways.

Although one can serve God through marriage, how much more can they serve God if they marry Him?

The first place for evangelization is always in the home. The first people one evangelizes are one own children.

Great, evangelize your own creation while there’s already too many people out there who have nobody to evangelize to them.

Pure selfishness IMO.

Giving another person the possibility to exist is selfish how?

They don’t need to exist.

You do it for your own self, you want to play God.

Ok, so the problem is not with the parents. It’s with God. (Otherwise how would the realize that “suicide is wrong” and that you “can’t choose to leave”?)

We can’t blame God for making the rules, we can blame people for not thinking of the impact those rules have if they choose to give in to their own selfish will to make a biological photocopy of themselves. (which is true, otherwise they’d adopt)

Yes, because our free will, our response to God’s grace, determine where we are heading.

One opinion, many Catholic, Protestant, & Secular theologians/philosophers have argued differently.

So no, God does not send anyone to Hell. He just respects our freedom

Less people born = less bad choices = less people in hell = good.

I understand that you are bitter and obviously in a great crisis (asking yourself why you were born in the first place? struggling with God?).

Put it this way, if someone said to me “Revelation, you can stay alive and take the chance of going to heaven/hell or we can make it so you were never born” I would have to reluctantly accept the latter.

I know I’m giving up heaven, but I may not even get there (the narrow path) so I could be giving up hell.

That’s a smart move then.

I’ll be praying for you and your intentions.

Thankyou, God Bless.

 

[lumendelumine]

Christ gave up heaven to suffer and die for us, yet how many people give up their marriage & parental “rights” for God to become Monks, Priests, & Nuns?

Rev,
it’s not for nothing that becoming a priest or religious is called a vocation. It’s God calling us to serve Him in a special way. It’s God calling us.

You are right (with St. Paul) that celibacy is a higher vocation than marriage. But both are vocations, and both have been instituted by God.

Also bear in mind that the vocation to celibacy is not about *avoiding something bad *or “icky”, but about doing without something good, for the sake of God.

Rejecting procreation because “it’s bad” is the gnostic heresy (=rejection of matter as evil). [This was taken up by the Cathars, the Albigensians, the Paulicians and other post-gnostic sects.] It’s ultimately the denial of the goodness of Creation and of the ordering of Creation by God. Thus, it’s ultimately the rejection of God and His works.

The Catholic vocation to celibacy is something totally different, because it acknowledges the goodness of marriage and the goodness of procreation.

I think if you get two people who are married and have 2 kids and you compare them to two celebant missionaries, the two celebant missionaries easily will save more souls than the 2 parents who spend all their time looking after their family primarily.

Not everyone is called to be celibate. People who want to live as a celibate by all means though they are not called to it will ultimately not only end up unhappy and angry with God, but may also break their celibacy vows and may ultimately even lose their faith, bringing themselves into great danger. And that’s what really endangers souls…

See it this way: many people like to play baseball or soccer, but only a handful have the ability, the physical condition, the circumstances, the will etc. to become a top baseball or soccer player. Does this mean everyone should strive to become a midfielder of the FC Barcelona? No, because some people are just not made for it, they would make themselves unhappy, harm their health etc.

On the other hand, the same people may be passionate soccer players in their free time, who may bring someone else, who does have the abilities to become a top player, to the game and ultimately to a great career. That’s why good Catholic families are a hothouse for vocations…

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Cathars.

CDL

 

[mercygate]

Thankyou, God Bless.

Huh?

 

[Zooey]

Cathars.

CDL

Exactly!!

 

[Revelation13_16]

By this logic, then the marriage of Joseph and Mary their “choice” to raise Jesus in a family was selfish.

Mary is the “ever-virgin” isn’t she?

If so, not selfish.

Joeseph however apparently had kids from a previous marriage.

I won’t say anymore for fear of hellfire.

Our lives as human beings are limited to what we can do here on earth. To give preference to one vocation over another (religious vs. marriage/family) is a choice each individual makes with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That does not mean that a religious life is better than the life dedicated to raising a family. BOTH are important - BOTH have their roles in building up the Church, the Body of Christ. BOTH can AND SHOULD dedicate their lives to Christ.

Try to see and appreciate the balance in both vocations.

Married people are good for the money they bring into the church, the church would be 100x poorer if all those 9-5ers with kids all disappeared.

Nevertheless, the church only exists to point people towards the real life that awaits after death, and more celebates running around evangelizing would point more people to heaven faster.

Paul spent his nights writing epistles instructing the church how to act to please God, married people spend their nights watching TV.

That’s great.

God Bless,
Rev

 

[Em_in_FL]

The biggest fallacy in your argument is that you claim that the unborn children actually “exist”. They do not. That unique soul is not even in existance until the moment of conception. It’s not in heaven, not in hell… it doesn’t exist at all.

So… on the other hand… I love my children so much that I want to share this wonderful world that God created with them! God created this world purely for our enjoyment… purely out of love for us. He gave each of us free will (talk about parental love!) to enjoy life to its fullest!

So you’d rather deny a soul of its existance than give it the opportunity to experience love, peace, forgiveness, and joy?

How is that not selfish?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You know, Rev, I am sorry for your personal pain and your personal experiences which have apparently driven you into thinking that all parents are selfish, no existence is ‘safe’, and that it’s better never to be born than to ‘risk’ living. (You probably don’t want to hear this but you’ll be amazed at what a difference 10 years or so will make to your understanding. You may well still remain celebate; you may still find parents objectionable, but unless you totally close your mind you’ll have a lot more insight into not just your self, but others as well).

But please don’t try to project your personal feelings onto the rest of us, or to present your personal interpretations as the fullness of truth. They aren’t. For all that you accuse us of responding with ‘emotion’, yours are the words that are most full of emotion, your conclusions are totally based on subjective emotion and opinion, and you are so convinced of your feeling that you ignore those who disagree with you, not on their own rational objections, but again based on your personal feelings.

You have been shown where the faults in your original premise lie. I wish that you would address that rather than attempting to do the ‘yes, but. . .’ or the ‘you say this in your church and that’s what I’m saying so you’re wrong’ lines that stop any discussion flat in its tracks because it doesn’t attempt to address differences, only to repeat opinions ad infinitum.

Sometimes you have to listen and think things through, and consider other evidence, instead of rushing to defend your own pet theories and ideas. That is what learning is all about; otherwise, why ever attempt to read or to explore anything? If you’ve made up your mind on a subject and only look at other information on that subject in order to compare it with your ‘mindset’ so that you can reject what doesn’t agree with you–you’re not learning at all.

God bless.

 

[Tonks40]

Mary is the “ever-virgin” isn’t she?

If so, not selfish.

Joeseph however apparently had kids from a previous marriage.

I won’t say anymore for fear of hellfire.

Read my words - the only thing I mentioned is Mary and Joseph forming a family - isn’t that what your argument is about?

Married people are good for the money they bring into the church, the church would be 100x poorer if all those 9-5ers with kids all disappeared.

Nevertheless, the church only exists to point people towards the real life that awaits after death, and more celebates running around evangelizing would point more people to heaven faster.

Paul spent his nights writing epistles instructing the church how to act to please God, married people spend their nights watching TV.

That’s great.

God Bless,
Rev

This just shows your lack of understanding. What if there were no more families in this utopian world you’ve created? How can the Church grow? Who will be left to pass on the faith? We don’t know the time or hour when the world will end - why force God’s will on that?

Don’t mess with God’s will - many have tried and have perished.

 

[exiled]

.

Christ gave up heaven to suffer and die for us, yet how many people give up their marriage & parental “rights” for God to become Monks, Priests, & Nuns?

I am, I was going to go to Mass today but I got there an hour early.

Nevertheless I prayed to God in the Catholic Church to guide me to the truth.

We’ll see.

I disagree mon ami.

I think if you get two people who are married and have 2 kids and you compare them to two celebant missionaries, the two celebant missionaries easily will save more souls than the 2 parents who spend all their time looking after their family primarily.

Here’s a Catholic example for you, I think you’ll like it.

A Protestant Pastor and a Catholic Priest are having lunch in a restaurant during World War 2, a bomb drops not far, both men get up.
The Protestant Pastor says “I’ve got to get to my wife and kids and look after them”, the Catholic Priest says “I’ve got to get to my flock and look after them”.

Now I - as a Protestant - can truly see the truth in that.

St. Peter took his wife on his travels and Peter only wrote two epistles. Paul was celebant and wrote half of the New Testament.

You can imagine, that those lonely nights that Paul spent writing his epistles, Peter was with his family.

Now I don’t want to judge Peter, but I don’t buy the fact that a married couple can further the word of God more than a celebant person, Paul even says this, a person who’s celebant will live for God, while the married will live for each other.

I just can’t see the logic in breeding when if you give your life to God, not only do you benefit, God benefits, but you also don’t risk bringing any more souls into the world that may go to hell.

Everyone wins.

God Bless,
Rev

Okay, two things. One a point, one a story.
If everyone was a celibate missionary, who the heck would they evangelize? Eventually there would be nobody left. Okay, there would be pagans, Muslims, etc., but if the whole world eventually converted, which IS the goal, then sure enough, we would celibate ourselves right out of existence.
Number two addresses the suffering children endure. I have some relatives, aunt, uncle and 5 cousins. Cousin #4 was not expected or “wanted”. The father was an alcoholic, mother was a bit of a floozy, they were already on state aid, etc. Cousins had a difficult childhood, no doubt. In #4’s mid to late teens, he was somehow moved by the Holy Spirit. He began going to Mass, and joined a karate school for discipline. He eventually earned his black belt, and the respect and friendship of the karate master. Later he got married and fervently and faithfully practiced his faith. He eventually prayed 3 of his siblings back into the church (the HS notwithstanding). He remained friends with the karate master through his adulthood. Now this karate teacher had a business of his own, he was well respected in the state, with awards, influential friendships, money and all. He was diagnosed with an aggressive cancer and obviously all who he touched gathered around (he was truly a wonderful man). About a month before he died my cousin was in his hospital room, as he had been every day for about a month as his friend declined. There were quite a few other friends in the room at this particular time. During a quiet time the teacher asked his friends who were in the room if he were ready to die. EVERYONE in the room, except my cousin, said yes. My cousin stood alone and said, No. You need to be baptized, confess and receive the Holy Eucharist. (for the sake of brevity I am not going into the details of the teacher’s spiritual journey) After some thought/prayer, the teacher agreed and received all of the sacraments and had a Catholic funeral Mass.
Now my point for this story is this. We can never know how many lives were touched by this man who, by all appearances, had everything, but, when his time came, he discovered that it didn’t count for anything, nor did it give him comfort. (BTW- this instructor was orphaned as a child in Korea and made his life alone) How many of the others in that hospital room, no one else of whom was Catholic, were moved by this conversion?
What about my cousin. What if he had never been born? Who would have brought the Truth to him? What if the instructor had never lived?
Lastly, have you not noticed that it us usually the wealthy who do not depend on or trust God? They are more likely to find themselves in hell, and Jesus did say that it is easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than to get to Heaven. So, if avoiding hell is the goal, then it is the wealthy, not the poor, who should not "breed". (which is a vulgar way of putting it)

 

[gardenswithkids]

If you were truly unselfish, you would have loved God only instead of getting married and bringing kids into the world.

Don’t believe me, read Paul’s (God’s) comments in 1 Corinthians 7:34:

"The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. "

The **most **unselfish love is loving God, not getting married and breeding.
…
Be like Mother Teresa, or St. Paul and give yourself for the world’s salvation.

Hi Rev, Okay, I see that point, and yes the Church holds that consecrated virginity and celibacy for the sake of the kingdom is the supreme form of self giving. But that doesn’t mean that marriage and parenthood is selfish. From The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality:

*34. Christian revelation presents the two vocations to love: marriage and virginity. In some societies today, not only marriage and the family, but also vocations to the priesthood and the religious life, are often in a state of crisis. The two situations are inseparable: **"When marriage is not esteemed, neither can consecrated virginity or celibacy exist; when human sexuality is not regarded as a great value given by the Creator, the renunciation of it for the sake of the kingdom of heaven loses its meaning."57 A lack of vocations follows from the breakdown of the family, yet where parents are generous in welcoming life, children will be more likely to be generous when it comes to the question of offering themselves to God: “Families must once again express a generous love for life and place themselves at its service above all by accepting the children which the Lord wants to give them with a sense of responsibility not detached from peaceful trust”, …Human life acquires fullness when it becomes a self-gift: a gift which can express itself in matrimony, in consecrated virginity, in self-dedication to one’s neighbour towards an ideal, or in the choice of priestly ministry… Pope John Paul II affirms: "Indeed Christian parents, discerning the signs of God’s call, will devote special attention and care to education in virginity or celibacy as the supreme form of that self-giving **that constitutes the very meaning of human sexuality."59 *

Be like Mother Teresa, or St. Paul and give yourself for the world’s salvation.

But don’t you see, neither Mother Teresa or St. Paul would have existed if not for their parents. That is the contribution of parents; it is the way in which parenthood populates heaven, because parents create human souls in co-operation with God. And St. Paul and Mother Teresa went onto convert other existing humans, so even more people could go to heaven.

(And please note, we use the term “mother” and “father” frequently for those who choose concecrated virginity, because such people are *spiritual *mothers and fathers, giving up their lives unselfishly for their *spiritual *children. Sometimes we also use the term “sister” and “brother” because they serve us, their spiritual brothers and sisters in Christ. Those who give up marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God, take God’s family as their own. )

Hell however, is a certainty for all who don’t make heaven.

If there are only two choices, then heaven would alternately be a certainty for all those who don’t make hell. And I still disagree with you 50/50 probability because God isn’t just flipping coins when He makes a human souls.

Hope and trust are certain, ergo, uncertainty. (“Faith is the hope for things unseen” - Hebrews)

Yes, I hope that I and my children will persevere in our Christian faith until the end, then if we do that we are assured of heaven. I think some of the problem is you lack understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches on assurance of heaven. We can be sure that anyone who dies in a state of grace goes to heaven. Again, this isn’t a coin toss–my children and I have a higher probability of dying in a state of grace since we currently live in a state of grace and frequent the Sacraments.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hell exists & is eternal suffering

True.

If we aren’t born, we have a 0% chance of going to hell.
If we are born, we have a 50% chance of going to hell.

The problem with your probabilities is that until conception, you don’t exist at all. Unless you are Mormon and believe that God has a lot of spiritual babies in heaven waiting for human bodies, it makes no sense to consider the rest of your argument.

So every parent decides to gamble with the soul of their child, by removing them from Total Safety (0%) and bringing them into Total Uncertainty. (50%)

Therefore, if you loved your children, you’d leave them in Total Safety (unborn)

Again, this is flawed because life begins at conception. Until that moment, there is no soul at risk.

But if you gamble by conceiving, you don’t love your children

We do not gamble; we obey God who said, “Be fruitful and multiply.”

Because love is selfless, and love is kind

True.

And gambling with a life that isn’t yours and doesn’t ask to be born is selfish

It is not necessarily selfish (though it can be); it is an act of obedience to God as stated above.

So that’s why you don’t love your children

How can I love non-existent children more by not conceiving them than the ones that I have conceived and loved?

God allows husband and wife to participate in his own creative ability through procreation. The couple creates life where none existed before. In the Nicene Creed, we recite each week the following: “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” It is the Spirit who gives life. Thus, when a couple chooses to use Artificial Birth Control to contracept, they are, in effect, saying to the Holy Spirit, “We do not want life to be given through this act. You are not welcome here.”

You only think you do

You only think you have a clever argument.