Why you don't love your children

[Terry_from_Ypsi]

I am not a parent. But as a pet owner, I have learned a lot the hard way about the Creator’s Love.

So, if I do not believe in God the Father and do not have a relationship with Him, I doubt I can be any kind of parent much less love my children

Regards,

 

[LilyM]

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

He did say this - he also said to cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes if they caused us to sin.

Do we see even the Apostles or Paul, who understood and practiced Christ’s teaching if anyone did, taking Christ’s words in complete literalness and ACTUALLY plucking out their eyes and cutting off their hands? No.

Neither does the fact that Christ said this to Judas LITERALLY mean that a) it really IS better for ALL of us if we had never been born and b) that we should cease having children forthwith. Again, even the Apostles didn’t teach this much to their followers. Not even St Paul himself.

 

[Jennifer123]

So God determined both Hitler & Stalin to be born?

Knowing what they would later do?

We were created for God’s pleasure.

God Bless,
Rev

God knows the anti-Christ will be born, He knows when, who and where. Hitler and Stalin are only precursors.

God made man to love and serve Him, but not for His pleasure. It pleases Him for us to serve Him, but by serving Him, we are serving others. God created us in friendship with Him, to love Him and be like Him. Why? I certainly don’t know, nor will I until I am in heaven, but I know that He made me out of deep love to want me to be with Him.
He made you because He has a deep love for you to be with Him too.

 

[Revelation13_16]

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?

Someone said there is grace in the sacrament of marriage.

I’m saying a single person who goes to Mass 6 times a week (mon-fri + Sun) compared to a married couple who only go on Sundays which has the more grace?

• St. Paul said it would be better to marry God, read the thread again LilyM, don’t call Paul a liar now. (borders on heresy)

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

You said:

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.

St Paul was celebant and I mentioned previously in this thread, he spent his nights writing those epistles in lieu of spending it with a wife and kids.

You mentioned Hitler in conjunction with St. Paul, they were totally different in everyway.

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

I didn’t hear their message nor see their results, so I don’t know.

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

Please, you’re on your own here sister.

Buy a book about church history and see the impact Paul had.

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.

Yes you’re quite right, Paul did hate the attachment to him.

But you can’t say God didn’t use Paul the most out of them all.

Yes I know Peter with the keys for you Catholics, and St. John’s gospel is the best + Revelation, so I agree about competition, but Paul had a tremendous and wide reaching impact, if a poll were to be taken (even to Paul’s chargrin) he would win as having the greatest impact on Christianity.

But all glory to God, Paul was only a tool for the Lord.

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

This is where we come to a terminology clash.

For Catholics church is a physical institution.

For Protestants it’s a spiritual institution.

So for Protestants, the most the church can be ‘already constructed’ is if 100% of the world was a Christian.

But I’m sure Catholics have the same goal.

God Bless,
Rev

 

[Revelation13_16]

He did say this - he also said to cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes if they caused us to sin.

Good advice.

Do we see even the Apostles or Paul, who understood and practiced Christ’s teaching if anyone did, taking Christ’s words in complete literalness and ACTUALLY plucking out their eyes and cutting off their hands? No.

I’ve been thinking about walking around Sydney with my eyes closed so as not to be tempted by looking at pretty girls, but I don’t have anyone to guide me.

But otherwsie, Jesus’ advice was technically correct.

Neither does the fact that Christ said this to Judas LITERALLY mean that a) it really IS better for ALL of us if we had never been born and b) that we should cease having children forthwith. Again, even the Apostles didn’t teach this much to their followers. Not even St Paul himself.

They didn’t say it, true, but the principle is the same.

If a child grows up, rejects God and their parents teaching and goes to Hell - with Judas - it would’ve been better if that child had never lived.

Because no life is worth hell, not even a day in heaven.

God Bless,
Rev

 

[Revelation13_16]

God knows the anti-Christ will be born, He knows when, who and where. Hitler and Stalin are only precursors.

Yes, specific precursors such as these (and maybe Napoleon) I can believe God plans.

However all the 8 Billion on earth today, I find it hard to believe God personally decided to say “yes” or “no” to each one of them.

Just my opinion though.

God made man to love and serve Him, but not for His pleasure. It pleases Him for us to serve Him, but by serving Him, we are serving others. God created us in friendship with Him, to love Him and be like Him. Why? I certainly don’t know, nor will I until I am in heaven, but I know that He made me out of deep love to want me to be with Him.
He made you because He has a deep love for you to be with Him too.

Exactly, so don’t get married Jen, marry God and devote your life to him.

God Bless,
Rev

 

[Jennifer123]

Someone said there is grace in the sacrament of marriage.

I’m saying a single person who goes to Mass 6 times a week (mon-fri + Sun) compared to a married couple who only go on Sundays which has the more grace?

For Catholics church is a physical institution.

For Protestants it’s a spiritual institution.

Well, in your example, you may be leaving out how the married couple lives their lives 6 days out of the week.

I’m assuming you aren’t married and have kids, because let me tell you, as a mother of a 2 and 3 year old boys, you better believe I’m serving Him literally 24/7, sacrificing sleep, spare time, sanity, all for raising what I hope, with God’s help, will be holy and righteous adults.

It is possible for a single person to not have as many opportunities to serve as does a married person. I would dare say that a holy housewife who maybe even attends a daily Mass now and then is as effacacious as a lot of priests?

But we Catholics have the notion of suffering in a way that Protestants do not and we understand that we can offer up our sufferings as sacrifices to the Lord, to be used for a personal intention or for how the Lord wishes. I can say a “morning offering” prayer and offer up all my “sufferings” of the day to His “sacred heart”.

I don’t find that too many Protestants understand the Catholic notion of offering up sufferings because they think that we teach that Jesus’s offering wasn’t sufficient. But we just follow St. Paul, who said, "“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh and I complete what is lacking in Christ’s affliction for the sake of his body, that is, the church” Col 1:24.

 

[Jennifer123]

Exactly, so don’t get married Jen, marry God and devote your life to him.

God Bless,
Rev

But He called me to marriage, which is in His plan for mankind, just as the offerings of those not married is also in His plan for mankind. That is why we must live in Him otherwise we can’t know what He means for our complete fulfillment here on Earth.

 

[jmcrae]

Actually, according to the seers at Fatima, 95% of humanity will end up in Hell; not just 50%.

But God’s is the victory when only one human being makes it out of the clutches of Satan, and Mary did that, thanks to the work of Jesus Christ on the Cross, which was pre-empltively applied to her at the time of her conception, freeing her from all sin. She herself made the free choice to remain that way.

It’s better to go to Hell than never to exist at all. The ability to experience happiness, even if it is never actually experienced, is better than not to exist at all.

You say that if the inmates of Auschwitz had had babies, it would have been a crime against those children? Not at all - it would have been a thumb in the nose of the Nazi system, because children are the hope of the future. Even if that child only lives for one day, he still gives hope to others - he still changes the world for the better.

But of course, it would be best of all if everyone could be happy on earth, and die in God’s grace, and go to Heaven. We are not, after all, required to believe the seers at Fatima.

 

[LilyM]

Actually, according to the seers at Fatima, 95% of humanity will end up in Hell; not just 50%.

Where did you read this?

 

[Jennifer123]

God made man to love and serve Him, but not for His pleasure. It pleases Him for us to serve Him, but by serving Him, we are serving others. God created us in friendship with Him, to love Him and be like Him. Why? I certainly don’t know, nor will I until I am in heaven, but I know that He made me out of deep love to want me to be with Him.
He made you because He has a deep love for you to be with Him too.

I don’t know why He made 8 billion people but to suggest that He didn’t do it or that He doesn’t love every single one of them is bordering on questioning His omnipotence and is a very non-Christian thing to believe, don’t you think?

If Paul wanted everyone to be celibate, why would he ask, “I will therefore that the younger should marry, bear children, be mistresses of families.” (1 Timothy 5:14) OR “but I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.” (1 Corinthians 7:8-9)?

God created man and woman to bring children in the world, it doesn’t take anyone special to see how, we are created specifically for that purpose, obviously. Not EVERY man and woman, but the calling to be celebate in Holy Orders is a special calling.

I’m tired and going to bed now. I’ve got a special calling at 6am and I’ve got to be ready for it.

 

[jmcrae]

Where did you read this?

In “It’s Time” magazine, a couple of years ago. I can probably dig it out, if you like.

 

[papaspicy]

Most of the discussion here on the original post has focused on whether or not giving a child the chance of heaven or hell is beneficial for them. If you’ve read this far you know what Rev thinks on this issue, however, I am not going to disagree with him. (Let me be absolutely clear that I am not conceding that he is correct, but for the sake of argument I will accept his view as possible, for now.)

To deny the first post, you have to deny hell, do that and you’re a heretic.

No, I’m not going to deny hell, but I wish to deny your final conclusion. Rev, you say basically that it is harmful and unloving to give a child a chance that they might go to hell. (This is your point that I am agreeing with here, though not actually conceding as correct.) But I see it as faulty logic when you make the leap that this means you don’t love your children. Hurting or harming your children once, as you say by gambling with their eternal possibilities, does not imply that you don’t love them.

How many people here have hurt or harmed their children, siblings, parents, friends, coworkers, etc. at some point? Does this mean that we have lost the ability to love them? How many times have you helped a person fall into sin? Maybe you wore provocative clothing that led a good friend into lust. Maybe you talked about your new car a little too much leading your brother to envy. These momentary hurts do not keep us from returning to a state of love for the beloved, in which we, emulating the love of God for us, learn how to express our true love for God.

So, if you have hurt your children by bringing them into this world, it does not follow that now you can’t or don’t love them. In the provocative title to this thread it appears, Rev, that you are professing a once harmed, always hated (and therefore never loved) view. It seems to me that this is an illogical deduction. Obviously this is not the central focus of you original post, or of the discussion at large here, but I did think I should address the ultimate conclusion to your theory.

Pax vobiscum

 

[papaspicy]

A few other comments on the discussion:

No existence = no pain
existence = pain

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

no existence = none of God’s love
existence = God’s love

We all experience God’s love, but we do have the chance to reject it. You have felt God’s love, would you deny the experience to another, assuming God wills them to exist?

Face it, marriage and procreation is selfish.

I disagree that marriage is intrinsically selfish. In good marriages, the partners give totally of themselves to each other denying themselves for the good of the other. Also, good parenting is selfless – ever get up at 3:00 in the morning for a feeding? I would agree however, that to a certain degree, in the marital embrace, where marriage and procreation intersect, people often become focused on personal desires. But at the same time both partners are giving their physical beings for the pleasure of the other, which is at least selflessish.

If you eliminate marriage though, how much of the imagery used in the bible to describe God’s relationship with humanity would you lose?

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.

A married couple can saves some souls. If they have 8 kids, they can produce 2 priests and 2 nuns, who would save twice the number as souls as the missionaries in your example. Plus the potential continuation of more generations of missionaries with the 4 kids that do marry. Also, if you have a married couple from some far off place would they be able to relate completely with a single person who is not married. It could be that a family going on a mission together would have more chance of reaching souls. There is need for variety, because different people are reached in different ways.

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”.

When that priest reaches is flock, I bet anything that he will spend much of his time consoling those who lost spouses or children, and helping others pray for family members that are still missing.

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

Are we certain that Peter took his wife with him? Some people think she may have died before Peter met Jesus. We hear of his mother-in-law, but never actually his wife right?

I’m not certain you can judge the quality of Peter or Paul’s preaching by the quantity of writings produced. And for that matter not even by the quantity of souls saved.

Paul wasn’t lonely when he wrote his epistles; for almost all of them he had a scribe. And don’t forget that Luke traveled much of the way with him.

If Peter did take his wife with him, she could have been a great asset. Peter couldn’t preach in the same way to women that his wife could. (And on a purely misogynistic level, Peter could work longer hours than Paul, because Peter didn’t have to do his own laundry! )

I guess a central point to my comments on Rev’s last three statements is that there are many parts to the Body of Christ. We need preachers to spread the good news, but also people who work behind the scenes and administer to the preachers.

But if you consider where he [Judas] is now …

I can’t consider where Judas is, because like all who have died, unless they are canonized saints, and as such infallibly defined to be in heaven, we do not know God’s judgment.

Pax vobiscum

 

[LilyM]

In “It’s Time” magazine, a couple of years ago. I can probably dig it out, if you like.

Who was it who said about the 95%, when did they say it?

 

[Revelation13_16]

found me!

 

[Black_Jaque]

Rev.

In parusing the posts to this thread, I noticed many people challenged your 50/50 odds reasoning. But I couldn’t find anyone who pointed out exactly how it was flawed.

Flipping a two sided coin has a 50/50 odds of landing on one side or the other precisely because once the coin leaves your hands you are no longer in control of how the coin lands.

Why you think this is somehow representative of how a person leads their life is beyond me.

Your coin example can only be analogous to a person’s life if we were to bet high-stakes on Heads. Heads you go to heaven, tails you burn in hell. Now to make the coin “toss” analogous to real life I would have to tell you that you don’t have to toss it. You simply have to lay it on the ground, whichever side you want.

Thinking that just because there are two outcomes to a scenario makes the odds 50/50 is foolish. If you truly believe that then you and I will have to start betting on sports games. I’ll bet you that Cargopilot can’t beat the Heavy Weight Boxing Champ. In fact I don’t think he even has a 50/50 chance of it.

The next problem with your reasoning is that it is cowardly. An offense against the virtue of fortitude. To say that the chance at getting to heaven isn’t worth the risk of going to Hell?

If my child were standing at the edge of a 5-foot chasm, and the other side was heaven, and the pit was hell, You bet I would tell him to jump! Why? Because we have Christs promise that those who commit to making the leap will succeed.

Those who drop into the gorge are those who, out of cowardice, try to step across the gap rather than jumping with both feet. They try to hang on to the security of leaving one foot in the world until the other foot is in heaven. We’ve already been told that’s a bad idea.

 

[gardenswithkids]

The next problem with your reasoning is that it is cowardly. An offense against the virtue of fortitude.

Great post Black Jaque, especially this point!

…If my child were standing at the edge of a 5-foot chasm, and the other side was heaven, and the pit was hell, You bet I would tell him to jump! Why? Because we have Christs promise that those who commit to making the leap will succeed.

I prefer showing my own children how to walk across the bridge Jesus built for them, (which is the same cross that Jesus tells them to pick up and follow Him.) But I also want them to know the Holy Spirit and their guardian angels to help them when they fall. Before your kids jump, encourage them to rely on the wings of the Holy Spirit and their guardian angel to make those leaps of faith more like flying.:angel1:

I see the op has taken a little break from Catholic Answers. I suggest we all pray for him that he develop the virtue of fortitude (a gift of the Holy Spirit) to help him overcome some of his fears.

 

[Zooey]

Gee you two are silly.

I’m not a Cathar, I’m not a Gnostic.

Research before you speak: link

God Bless,
Rev

How about you doing some research from a slightly more reliable source?? newadvent.org/cathen/03435a.htm

You may think that what you’re espousing is not heretical, but that doesn’t mean that what you think is true…http://bestsmileys.com/clueless/4.gif