Why you don't love your children

[Cari]

Exactly.

Breeding and marriage is the consolation prize for those who drop out of the real pious race.

I’m so sorry if someone already pointed this out (I usually try to read all the posts before chiming in), but this statement seems to be counter to how God chose to realize His salvation plan. Jesus, being God, could have dropped in from nowhere, from the middle of a cloud and burst of light, fully formed and adult, right? (I am, of course, making an assumption that you, Revelation 13:16, believe Jesus to be the second Person in the Trinity and therefore all-powerful)

God did NOT choose to come to earth already an adult. He chose to come as a child, born to a woman. A woman, I would hazzard to guess, who did not find being the God-bearer a “consolation prize for those who drop out of the real pious race”. In fact, suggesting that Our Lady “drop[ped] out of the real pious race” seems utterly absurd.

So, I’ll go ahead and take my cues from God. But thanks for asking!

Cheers,
Cari, whose children would find the suggestion that I didn’t love them odd, to say the least.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I’ve read though this whole thread and I find myself empathising with Rev’s conclusions.

I was born pre-mature and not expected to survive, so was given the last rites and baptism whilst in an incubator. Obviously, I survived, (or else this would be “ghost” writing!).

To be honest, I feel a little cheated. If I hadn’t survived, I would have gone straight to Heaven for an eternity of bliss and happiness. Unfortunately, I now have to live a life where stupid human mistakes and weaknesses will probably trip me up and damn me to eternal torment.Couple this with all the pain and suffering of this world?

The logical conclusion is that it would have been much better for me to have died and reaped the benefit rather than live for a human lifetime (a blink of an eye in comparison to eternity) and risk it all over a stupid mistake or choice. (Not one in particular, I’m illustrating the point!)

I did a little highlighting. Selfishness is when the focus is on self rather than God or others. Perhaps it might have been better for you, but this world doesn’t revolve around you. For some reason, God wanted you to live a few more blinks of an eye than you would have liked. You serve some purpose in His eternal plan.

 

[marci]

Protestants only have 2 sacraments remember?

 

[cynic]

I did a little highlighting. Selfishness is when the focus is on self rather than God or others. Perhaps it might have been better for you, but this world doesn’t revolve around you. For some reason, God wanted you to live a few more blinks of an eye than you would have liked. You serve some purpose in His eternal plan.

and what if his plan is for some to go to hell? What if, in order to make Gods justice and vengeance manifest, some people need to end up there?

 

[Revelation13_16]

Revelation13_16;1929948:

Hmm…I’m having the worst trouble posting lately. Sorry if this shows up twice but…
Children are the natural expression of the marital embrace between a husband and wife, just as the Holy Spirit is the natural expression to us from the love between God and His only begotten son, Jesus.
Human sexuality was created by God and the only natural course is to have children, so I’m not sure why this would anger God.

So yes marriage without breeding is truly beautiful … but also truly implausable -** unless both parties sterilize themselves, and I’m not sure God would want that.**

Therefore, celibacy seems the only safe option to avoid angering God, and also avoid bringing kids into the world.

God Bless,
Rev

 

[LilyM]

In measuring Grace, a single person who goes to 6:15pm mass every night, and a married couple who can’t due to work/lifestyle, which gets the more grace?

Totally wrong - I suppose it’s never occurred to you that there actually are plenty of families (or at least parents!) who do work AND go to daily Mass? My parents for 35 years were among them, and would be still if they hadn’t retired to remote spot an hour and a half from their nearest church.

Equally there are plenty of single people who do not find it at all easier to serve God through their single status. For every St Paul who wrote the epistles there’s a Hitler who caused untold misery and dragged millions into hell on earth and possibly influenced them to the damnation of their souls as well.

And I can tell you from personal experience that my own parents, again, have done marvellous work for Christ in and through their vocation as physicians, and saved and influenced untold numbers of lives. I can tell you their work in all respects would’ve been a lot more difficult without the mutual support they gave each other in the workplace and the help that my sisters and I gave them at home.

I have no doubt that they have helped sanctify their children by setting, for us and everyone they’ve come into contact with, a brilliant example of practical application of the Gospel. St Paul, worthy though he is, certainly couldn’t have achieved such a thing for us by his writing alone.

I also firmly believe that we in our turn have sanctified them by the opportunities we gave them to practice the virtues of generosity, patience, self-sacrifice and a host of others. Again, the worthy St Paul couldn’t have done the same for them.

You have an altogether too narrow understanding of the many means God has given us by which to serve him and achieve holiness. As if St Paul’s is the only way and St Peter’s was nothing! Are they both not highly-honoured saints and glorified among the topmost ranks of those in heaven? How then can you say Peter’s achievement was so much lesser than Paul’s?

 

[gardenswithkids]

I agree that marriage can make people more selfless, but I also think that evangelism makes one more selfless also.

Then you* do* see some possible benefit to marriage! But I think rather than saying evangelism makes one more selfless than marriage, I’d suggest true evangelism flows from someone who is already selfless. (Then there’s those most pitiful ones who manage to even make evangelism a selfish activity, when preaching becomes less about God and more about the preacher.)

Marriage is inherantly selfish because it’s so pleasurable, that’s why almost everyone does it.

Oh, but selfishness destroy marriage–hence the very high divorce rate. You say marriage is so pleasurable, but many choose to be alone rather than stay married. Obviously persons who file for divorce found something unpleasurable in marriage.

God is the giver of life, yes, but does he still give it?

Isn’t it us that decides now when to create a child? (bar bad genes stopping us)

I have trouble believing God is directly behind the birth of every child, it’s a bit too close to predestination for me.

I do believe however he is indirectly behind the birth of every child, because it’s by the power he bestowed upon us that we can create.

If He is the Giver of Life, then of course He gives life. Thinking that God is behind the birth of every child doesn’t seem remotely close to predestination to my way of thinking. (But many of *your *other posts do seem influenced by predestination-type of theology. I can’t figure you out.) I believe that God is behind the birth of every child, but I reject the idea that anyone is predestined for hell.

 

[Revelation13_16]

I’m so sorry if someone already pointed this out (I usually try to read all the posts before chiming in), but this statement seems to be counter to how God chose to realize His salvation plan. Jesus, being God, could have dropped in from nowhere, from the middle of a cloud and burst of light, fully formed and adult, right? (I am, of course, making an assumption that you, Revelation 13:16, believe Jesus to be the second Person in the Trinity and therefore all-powerful)

God did NOT choose to come to earth already an adult. He chose to come as a child, born to a woman.

Yes.

A woman, I would hazzard to guess, who did not find being the God-bearer a “consolation prize for those who drop out of the real pious race”. In fact, suggesting that Our Lady “drop[ped] out of the real pious race” seems utterly absurd.

You’re comparing your role as mother to Mary’s?

Did Isaiah talk about you too?

So, I’ll go ahead and take my cues from God. But thanks for asking!

Cheers,
Cari, whose children would find the suggestion that I didn’t love them odd, to say the least.

Should a person be silly enough to ask their children “do you think I don’t love you because I brought you into the world” (and I don’t think you really did ask them, at least I hope you didn’t) - that person would have to remember that they can’t ask the child now but they must ask the child when the child reaches it’s eternal destination.

Every person in hell would wish they had never been born.

God Bless,
Rev

 

[Jennifer123]

Jennifer123;1930034:

God Bless,
Rev

You quoted me but I still am not sure why having children, which is the natural expression of the marital embrace that He designed, would make Him angry? I didn’t get your answer - I am a bit thick sometimes, so please bear, but I think I may have missed something in the post.
Thanks

 

[Revelation13_16]

This doesn’t answer the question. If you are having problems with church doctrine concerning the sacraments, how could you possibly consider the priesthood in which one of your duties could be to officiate a sacrament to which you do not believe in.

 

[Cari]

and what if his plan is for some to go to hell? What if, in order to make Gods justice and vengeance manifest, some people need to end up there?

If you believed this, then I would assume that you’re not Catholic, since we have that Nicene Creed thing that says, “For us men, and for our salvation, He came down from Heaven”. Nothing there about “some men being slotted for Hell to further God’s plan”. Then at the Concecration, when the priest says the words of Jesus, where he says his blood is shed “for all”. Again, no mention of a sinister plan on the part of God to “use” some people to make God’s justice and vengance manifest- that’s some creepy theology- good thing it’s not Catholic!

And (shifting gears) about the 50/50, coin flip thing: the coin is supposed to represent both the possible outcomes AND the person flipping? I know the OP stated the coin analogy was flawed, but it was the only illustration given of why we should accept the 50/50 premise.

I can buy the coin being the options of heaven or hell, but it can’t represent the person doing the flipping (i.e. living). The flipper could refuse to flip, or get a new coin with two heads, or modify the coin to always result in a certain way, etc.

Again, I realize the OP recognized the failure of his original image; could you please supply us with a more accuate one?

Cheers,
Cari

 

[Revelation13_16]

Totally wrong

No question is ever totally wrong, what’s wrong with you?

• I suppose it’s never occurred to you that there actually are plenty of families (or at least parents!) who do work AND go to daily Mass? My parents for 35 years were among them, and would be still if they hadn’t retired to remote spot an hour and a half from their nearest church.

I see alot of people on their lunch break go to St Peter Juliens & St Mary’s so I’m well aware of this.

Equally there are plenty of single people who do not find it at all easier to serve God through their single status. For every St Paul who wrote the epistles there’s a Hitler who caused untold misery and dragged millions into hell on earth and possibly influenced them to the damnation of their souls as well.

Hitler had a girlfriend LilyM, don’t you watch the History channel?

And I can tell you from personal experience that my own parents, again, have done marvellous work for Christ in and through their vocation as physicians, and saved and influenced untold numbers of lives.

Lives or souls?

I can tell you their work in all respects would’ve been a lot more difficult without the mutual support they gave each other in the workplace and the help that my sisters and I gave them at home.

I have no doubt that they have helped sanctify their children by setting, for us and everyone they’ve come into contact with, a brilliant example of practical application of the Gospel. St Paul, worthy though he is, certainly couldn’t have achieved such a thing for us by his writing alone.

If they set a good example for you, so they should, that’s the price that comes with parenting.

• St. Paul did more for Christianity than arguably anyone else, careful with your words LilyM, St. Paul helped countless people come to Christ and he turned his back on everything to do it.

That’s the selflessness that comes with serving God, not one’s partner and kids.

I also firmly believe that we in our turn have sanctified them by the opportunities we gave them to practice the virtues of generosity, patience, self-sacrifice and a host of others. Again, the worthy St Paul couldn’t have done the same for them.

St Paul was the spiritual father of Timothy, and he set great examples for whole churches.

So you and your parents reveled in a back-and-forth exchange of “setting a good example”, that’s pittance compared to what St. Paul did.

You have an altogether too narrow understanding of the many means God has given us by which to serve him and achieve holiness. As if St Paul’s is the only way and St Peter’s was nothing! Are they both not highly-honoured saints and glorified among the topmost ranks of those in heaven? How then can you say Peter’s achievement was so much lesser than Paul’s?

Because it’s true, isn’t it?

How many Churches did Paul plant compared to Peter?

Paul even corrected Peter because Peter was going a bit astray.

God used Paul to write half of the New Testament.

Heck, some people - secular people - in an attempt to attack Christianity say “Paul invented Christianity” because God used him so much.

I disagree with these secular folk, but I can understand where they are coming from.

But I don’t want this topic to change to St. Paul vs St. Peter, if you want to discuss that, go start a thread in Apologetics about it.

God Bless,
Rev

 

[LilyM]

Every person in hell would wish they had never been born.

God Bless,
Rev

I don’t believe that for a second. No more than I believe that EVERY person who divorces wishes they’d never married. You simply can’t make those sort of blanket generalisations about something as complex as human nature. Or about God’s view of the matter.

Personally if I were to end up in hell I imagine I’d wish that I’d made better choices in my life and done more with it so as to better serve God and avoid hell, and secure a place in heaven.

If I had any sense, I’d recognise that where I was was my own fault. I wouldn’t blame my parents or think they’d done wrong in giving birth to me, because it’s not like they made me go to hell.

Even if I believed in predestination in any form, surely they would be just as predestined to give birth to me and contribute to my fate in whatever way they do, as I was predestined to be born and to suffer that fate? Your position doesn’t appear to be especially comprehensible or defensible, Rev.

 

[Revelation13_16]

Then you* do* see some possible benefit to marriage!

Ofcourse.

My issue is not with marriage but with procreation.

But I think rather than saying evangelism makes one more selfless than marriage, I’d suggest true evangelism flows from someone who is already selfless. (Then there’s those most pitiful ones who manage to even make evangelism a selfish activity, when preaching becomes less about God and more about the preacher.)

Read what I wrote about ‘impure motives’ at the start.

BTW those who do it for pride, they have their reward. (as Paul said “I don’t care if they do it out of mockery, as long as the gospel is preached!”)

Oh, but selfishness destroy marriage–hence the very high divorce rate. You say marriage is so pleasurable, but many choose to be alone rather than stay married. Obviously persons who file for divorce found something unpleasurable in marriage.

Yes, no love there.

Love is patient, love is kind, love is longsuffering, love is caring.

People who run in and out of marriages are really looking for love & acceptance but not finding it.

If He is the Giver of Life, then of course He gives life. Thinking that God is behind the birth of every child doesn’t seem remotely close to predestination to my way of thinking. (But many of *your *other posts do seem influenced by predestination-type of theology. I can’t figure you out.) I believe that God is behind the birth of every child, but I reject the idea that anyone is predestined for hell.

I don’t mean predestination to hell, I mean this:

If you believe God is behind every child, then when the couple are copulating God either says “Yes” (baby will result) or “No”. (no baby for you!)

In that respect, God chooses whether the person will concieve or not.

Now if God chooses this, the question then arises, “What else does God choose?”

Does He choose specific things to happen throughout that child’s life or is the choosing of whether a child will be born the only decision he makes, and then he chooses no more, allowing that person to have true Free Will?

And so we once again come back to this subject that I don’t want to discuss because it’s incredibly long and it’s all a ‘mystery’.

Personally, I believe God doesn’t interfere in whether a person will concieve or not, we have the power (if not denied by our genetics) and that power is inherantly in us by design.

But we were supposed to use it in a sin-free environment, after the fall however, we can now use it in a sinful environment, and that’s why I question if anyone should.

God Bless,
Rev

 

[Revelation13_16]

Revelation13_16;1930155:

You quoted me but I still am not sure why having children, which is the natural expression of the marital embrace that He designed, would make Him angry? I didn’t get your answer - I am a bit thick sometimes, so please bear, but I think I may have missed something in the post.
Thanks

Hi Jen,

I mean’t mutilating oneself (becoming a Eunuch, Vasectomy, Historectomy) might anger God.

God Bless,
Rev

 

[Jennifer123]

Ofcourse.

My issue is not with marriage but with procreation.

Personally, I believe God doesn’t interfere in whether a person will concieve or not, we have the power (if not denied by our genetics) and that power is inherantly in us by design.

But we were supposed to use it in a sin-free environment, after the fall however, we can now use it in a sinful environment, and that’s why I question if anyone should.

God Bless,
Rev

God is the one who opens and closes the womb. We can do this in cooperation with Him through a sacramental marriage, or not, but it is still God who determines who is conceived and who isn’t.
Not to sound flippant, but do you know why we are created?

 

[Jennifer123]

Jennifer123;1930170:

Hi Jen,

I mean’t mutilating oneself (becoming a Eunuch, Vasectomy, Historectomy) might anger God.

God Bless,
Rev

Oh, okay. You are right, these things (though I’m not sure about the “eunich” thing as I’m thinking about the Ethiopian) but these things are contrary to God’s design for human sexuality.

 

[LilyM]

No question is ever totally wrong, what’s wrong with you?

I’m sure the question was genuine enough. I think your conclusions and assumptions are wrong.

I see alot of people on their lunch break go to St Peter Juliens & St Mary’s so I’m well aware of this.

Then why are you persisting in this fallacy that married people and/or parents are as a group less holy and less able to serve God than singles?

Hitler had a girlfriend LilyM, don’t you watch the History channel?

But he didn’t have children by her, which was the main thrust of your OP.

Lives or souls?

Both, I should think. You think people didn’t commit their souls to his philosophical ideals as well as following his instructions?

St. Paul did more for Christianity than arguably anyone else, careful with your words LilyM, St. Paul helped countless people come to Christ and he turned his back on everything to do it.

That’s the selflessness that comes with serving God, not one’s partner and kids.

Apart from the other Apostles who ALL left everything to follow him and ALL travelled countless miles spreading the Gospel just as he did?

St Paul was the spiritual father of Timothy, and he set great examples for whole churches. How many Churches did Paul plant compared to Peter?

And St Peter is the spiritual father of Catholicism, to which more than half of all Christians belong. He founded Churches in all sorts of places, Antioch (from which his see or bishopric was moved to Rome with himself) and Alexandria are just two of them, probably Rome as well since when Paul wrote to the Romans he hadn’t actually visited the place yet himself - obviously someone had, and founded there the church to whom Paul wrote, and that someone was most likely Peter.

Besides which, they weren’t and shouldn’t be seen as being in competition with each other. Paul abhorred the idea of anyone saying they followed him as opposed to Peter or Apollos, remember - he said ALL should remember that they followed one, Christ.

So you and your parents reveled in a back-and-forth exchange of “setting a good example”, that’s pittance compared to what St. Paul did.

Whatever my parents achievements, if they end up in heaven as they very likely will it will be because they did the will of God supremely well, just as both Peter and Paul did. And I believe there are just as many parents as Apostles in heaven, don’t you?

We are all called to different tasks - Paul indeed was instrumental, ALONG WITH the other Apostles, none of whom are to be sniffed at, in building the Church. My parents, and you, couldn’t possibly be intended for the same job because the church is largely, if not entirely, already constructed as much as it can be, and the New Testament already written.

But I don’t want this topic to change to St. Paul vs St. Peter, if you want to discuss that, go start a thread in Apologetics about it.

God Bless,
Rev

YOU have introduced the topic of Paul v Peter. They’re both Apostles, both instrumental in founding the Church, arguably Paul had the greater role, but I firmly believe they are right alongside each other and the other Apostles in heaven, meaning that they all served God supremely well. How can we argue with anyone who has done that?

 

[Revelation13_16]

I don’t believe that for a second. No more than I believe that EVERY person who divorces wishes they’d never married. You simply can’t make those sort of blanket generalisations about something as complex as human nature. Or about God’s view of the matter.

Personally if I were to end up in hell I imagine I’d wish that I’d made better choices in my life and done more with it so as to better serve God and avoid hell, and secure a place in heaven.

Ofcourse. (if we have free will)

But my statement covers both free will and predestination.

• Jesus said it was better if Judas was never born, so my words are actually closer to God’s than yours.

If I had any sense, I’d recognise that where I was was my own fault. I wouldn’t blame my parents or think they’d done wrong in giving birth to me, because it’s not like they made me go to hell.

Free will vs determinism again.

You can’t say conclusively which one is true, so err on the side of caution and don’t breed.

Even if I believed in predestination in any form, surely they would be just as predestined to give birth to me and contribute to my fate in whatever way they do, as I was predestined to be born and to suffer that fate? Your position doesn’t appear to be especially comprehensible or defensible, Rev.

This is called Compatibalism - the idea that predestination and free will can co-exist.

I personally think it’s very weak.

If my position is not comprehensible or defensible in your eyes LilyM, it means you need to study more about "the big picture.

This is a complex issue mon amie, especially if this is your first encounter with it.

God Bless,
Rev

 

[Revelation13_16]

but it is still God who determines who is conceived and who isn’t.

So God determined both Hitler & Stalin to be born?

Knowing what they would later do?

Not to sound flippant, but do you know why we are created?

We were created for God’s pleasure.

God Bless,
Rev