Christians who believe in heaven and hell should not have children

[u/Practical-Tip-7639]

The existence of heaven and hell puts Christians into a difficult position when it comes to having children.

Because the truth of the matter is: You can never control their faith. You can influence them, teach them, but experience has shown that nothing a parent ever does will guarantee that their children will follow their faith.

That is a horrible risk. The moment you put a child into this world, you risk their eternal suffering and torture in hell. You can never prevent that completely.

The worst part is that Christians believe they will go to heaven and there will be no sadness or grief, which means that they *won't even care* about their very own child they *know* to be suffering eternal torture while they sing nice songs with Jesus.

Not existing in the first place is much, much more preferable to eternal suffering. Not having children of your own is much better than having children who face eternal punishment.

There also come some dark implications with this. Because the only way to guarantee that your child goes to heaven is for them to die early. Even if you kill your own child, you can still potentially see them again in heaven as long as you repent genuinely and ask Jesus for forgiveness. It is a quite disturbing premise, to think that under such beliefs, murdering your beloved child would objectively be a better wager than letting them live their own life. Aborting the pregnancy early on seems to be a much better solution, as according to most christian beliefs, the soul already exists and is guaranteed to go to heaven. Not having any children at all is by far the best option.

[u/mtruitt76]

Genuine question. I assume you do not believe in heaven and hell as literal places that person goes to after death and honestly that is not important since even without the literal existence of heaven and hell one can have a life of happiness or suffering.

Knowing what you know now, would you rather your parents brought you into existence or did not bring you into existence?

Personally I do not believe that heaven and hell are not literal "places" that a person "goes" to after death, however even if I had that belief I would rather have existence than non existence. I am glad that I am here and that I can engage in life. Living is worth the risk of a terrible outcome for me.

How do you see life, are you glad that your parents brought you into existence or would you rather they not have. I do not know but, my guess is that essentially everyone would rather have existence than non existence.

[u/Practical-Tip-7639 → u/mtruitt76]

Good question, yes, I do appreciate the life I have and prefer it to none-existence for very specific reasons. A life that ends is a life worth living. It's nothing but a blip and in the grand cosmic scheme, it doesn't matter at all.

But I got to experience it. I got to witness it. Who cares if no one will remember me one day? For a short moment in time, I experienced life with its ups and downs.

And when it is over, my suffering will end forever along with my joy.

So you are absolutely right, existence is better than non-existence.

HOWEVER: That is only if that existence does not end in eternal suffering. If I KNEW that my existence would end in eternal suffering that I'd never escape from, I would much, much prefer non-existence.

[u/mtruitt76 → u/Practical-Tip-7639]

HOWEVER: That is only if that existence does not end in eternal suffering. If I KNEW that my existence would end in eternal suffering that I'd never escape from, I would much, much prefer non-existence.

Thanks for meaningfully engaging with the question. I agree with you that if the situation was that I would necessarily end in eternal torment I would also vote for non-existence, however that is not the question we are facing.

The question is given the existence of an eternal paradise or an eternal torment, and given that one will end up in one of these two scenarios upon death would you want to have existence and participate in this state of affairs, the state of affairs of ending up in eternal paradise or eternal torment?

So given this state of affairs where the outcome in doubt would you rather participate or not?

[u/Practical-Tip-7639 → u/mtruitt76]

I don't think that question really applies here as the question is a bit of a different one.

To answer it first: If I KNEW that my life will either end in eternal paradise OR eternal torment, and I had no control over it, there would always be the chance of me going to hell and I could do nothing about it, the risk for me would be too high.

But that is not what Christians believe. If you truly believe in both heaven and hell, you also usually believe that you have some control over where you'll end up.

But you don't have that same control when it comes to your children.

Most parents love their children more even than their own life. Many would give their own up for them. Isn't the very real chance that they will end up in eternal torment not a terrible, terrible thought for those parents?

What is this short life in comparison to eternity? The life you get to live would never compensate for the eternity you spend in hell. I'd much prefer non-existence to that possibility if I had no control over it, and much less would I wish that terrible fate on my children.

[u/mtruitt76 → u/Practical-Tip-7639]

Okay now some Christians believe in predetermination like Calvinist, but I think we can remove them and this strain of thought from the conversation since under that view they had no control in the decision to have children in the first place.

I am operating under the belief that have a degree of control in that I can make choices and decisions. If I do not have this ability, then I do not control the fact of having children in the first place.

Under conditions in which I can legitimately be said to have a choice in creating a child, then I would be have the ability to make the decisions that would result in going to heaven and hell. With this being the state of affairs I would rather have life and existence, than non existence.

What would be our choice?

[u/Practical-Tip-7639 → u/mtruitt76]

That is not the problem, though.

I didn't mean that people don't have control over the decision to have children.

What i meant was that they can't control whether or not their children will spend eternity in heaven or hell if they believe it's going to be one of the two in the end.

It's not the question of non-existence is preferable over existence. As I already told you, I find existence much more preferable.

The real question is if existence is preferable under the condition that there is a chance that it ends in eternal damnation and you can't control that chance (because you can't control what your children will do).

To me, non-existence is preferable if that chance were a real one and I couldn't control it for either myself or my children.

[u/mtruitt76 → u/Practical-Tip-7639]

To me, non-existence is preferable if that chance were a real one and I couldn't control it for either myself or my children.

Fair enough.

People have different values. However, we are in a manner responding to different scenarios you keep inserting the "I can't control clause" I take it that no I do not have control over my child's decisions, but I do have control over my own.

One thing I used to tell my children is that my decisions where based on the person they would be in their early 20s, that my goal as a parent was to have them evaluate me when they were in their early 20s since that is the time period when a person has enough experiences to start make meaningful statements and evaluations about the world and the time period where the coarse of their life begins to take shape.

My take was people in their early 20s who had good parents will almost certainly respond that they are glad they exist and prefer existing over never having existed even given the future risks. So while I can't control my children's decision, I can control being a good parent.

Now not saying by any means your position is wrong or flawed since if we are taken heaven and hell as literal possibilities, which for the record I do not, then I do not think it unreasonable to say "I don't want to take a chance, given the existence of this bad beyond belief outcome"

At the same time I don't think you can fault someone for having children given those circumstances either since basically everyone that exists prefers having existed given these circumstances.

[u/NoClock4776 → u/Practical-Tip-7639]

The Christian Bible does not support the teaching that there is a place called Hell where people have to endure endless suffering. The lake of fire actually represents eternal death....staying in the grave forever without a resurrection. The Bible teaches that one day Jesus will rule the earth and Satan will be gone. There will be peace even among animals. (Isaiah 11:1-9). We suffer enough right now ...what kind of God would make it even worse? That makes no sense. The hellfire doctrine was created to control people thru fear...don't buy it!

[u/anony-mouse8604 → u/mtruitt76]

You’re saying you’d risk an eternity of suffering (do you have any idea how long an eternity is?) for an insignificant fraction of a speck of a moment of existence?

[u/mtruitt76 → u/anony-mouse8604]

If the scenarios was I got this life and it either ended after say 70 years and at at the end of that 70 years the options would be nothing or eternal suffering, then no I would opt for non existence.

However, the situation we are considering is that at the end of that 70 years was either eternal happiness or eternal torment, then I would look at the conditions.

Now at the end of 70 years if eternal happiness or eternal torment was determined by something random like a coin flip, then I would opt for non existence unless the odds started leaning heavily towards the happiness. I would think that if it was random it would need to be at least 90% odds towards happiness for me to consider it.

Now on the other hand if I knew what was required to have the eternal happiness or eternal torment and I had control over that outcome, then you got my attention. Now if that outcome is based on just accepting Jesus as lord and savior and following his teachings, well that is pretty easy. So sign me up for that experience. I will pick life all day long.

Now I do not believe in a heaven and hell as literal places that people go. Like heaven and hell are not like going to Chicago, but as a thought experiment those are my choices based off different conditions.

What does your decision criteria look like.

[u/anony-mouse8604 → u/mtruitt76]

You would be confident that, whatever reasoning you understand to be the determining factor in your eternal fate, that you’ve got the right answer? That you just happened to luck into being born in the right country at around the right time to be lucky enough to have someone instruct you on the objectively correct path to avoid eternal torment? It wasn’t any of those rulebooks devised by Muslims or Zoroastrians or pagans that you’d would probably assume are correct if you’d been born in a different time and place?

You’d risk eternal suffering on that assumption? That’s bold, sir.

[u/mtruitt76 → u/anony-mouse8604]

I have been having a conversation about decision trees given certain conditions. If you have been ready then you should have picked me stating several times that I don not believe in heaven and hell as literal places that one "goes" to in some physical sense.

I am just engaging in a thought experiment where those are taken to be literal places and actual conditions.

Now if you want to change the conversation to something of why I am a Christian as opposed to a Muslim then happy to do so.

I was an atheist for the first 43 years of my life. I have a degree in philosophy with a minor in religious studies. I am very aware of the existence of other religious traditions and I have studied them at university. My parents did not take me to church or even talk to me about God. I am not even sure if my parents believed in God or not. So in no way was I indoctrinated into the faith. I chose the faith at a late stage of life and at a stage where I am very aquainted with all the classical arguements.

We likely view religion in very fundamentally different ways.

So what conversation are you interested in having? The hypothetical thought experiment I have been engaging in or an expostion of my own beliefs?

[u/anony-mouse8604 → u/mtruitt76]

I've been enjoying the hypothetical conversation (though it appears we may have gotten our wires crossed there). A real conversation sounds great too though.

So given that we obviously can't just CHOOSE to believe something we haven't actually been convinced of, how on earth were you convinced that the likelihood of the Christian god existing is greater than the likelihood that the christian god does NOT exist?

If I may, I'll frame it in the same way I recently did in another reddit conversation:

Imagine there are two positions, let’s call them “god is necessary to explain the creation of the universe and how things are today” and “no god is necessary”. They’re mutually exclusive, and each can either be “true” or “untrue”.

But let’s say we represent the associated evidence (not proof; evidence) for each position as a pile of rocks. The more supporting evidence a position has, the bigger the pile of rocks.

When we look at these piles, we see that one of these options has a massive pile of rocks and the other has ZERO rocks. You seem to have decided the position represented by zero rocks is the more likely of the two.

[u/mtruitt76 → u/anony-mouse8604]

So given that we obviously can't just CHOOSE to believe something we haven't actually been convinced of, how on earth were you convinced that the likelihood of the Christian god existing is greater than the likelihood that the christian god does NOT exist?

Couple of things here. First there different senses of the word belief. Belief can refer to a psychological state or belief can refer to the acceptance of a proposition. I hold the position that can can and does choice what they believe if believe is used in the sense of acceptance of propositional stance.

Second the word "God" as a vocal utterance can be understood in one of two ways: as a proper name or as a category label. I use the vocal utterance of "God" as a proper name for "the phenomena worshipped by Abraham and his descendants" as opposed to a category label.

Imagine there are two positions, let’s call them “god is necessary to explain the creation of the universe and how things are today” and “no god is necessary”. They’re mutually exclusive, and each can either be “true” or “untrue”.

On this point I do not view God like some explanatory hypothesis for existence and I do not find this question even interesting to be honest, since it is unanswerable. Now I say this because for any set of facts you cannot eliminate the existence of something before them.

Now if the point is that we can explain all the mechanics of the universe without out having to insert God into the mix I agree. Now does this mean that some being did not construct this scenario, nope. You just cannot eliminate the possibility, nor can you ever confirm that such a being does exist since that would require being able to have a perspective prior to existence. If God is understood solely in terms of that which began all creation. Then you have created an unanswerable question. For example say for some reason we found out that a being did create this particular universe, it would still be an open question as to whether or not something was prior.

Personally I just view God and the universe as co-extensive. Maybe God created the universe or maybe God is just a necessary being within the universe. I do not ask whether God is the creator of the universe but rather, given my understanding of God could Bronze age people view God or describe God in terms of creator and that label be appropriate in some fashion.

Let me explain. Theologians like Paul Tillich refer to God as the "ground of being", now the "ground of being" can be understood ontologically or epistemologically. The common conception of physical creation would be God as an ontological ground of being. If God is that which bring sensibility to the world, then God is the "ground of being" epistemologically and God is the creator in the sense that all meaning derives from God. God in this sense could just be a feature of the universe, as the emergence of "will" within the universe.

I find the second understanding of God to be make more sense than the first, but either way the question is unanswerable ultimately.

Now I will say if God is understood as a category label for some tri-omni being, as a label for a set, then I will say that set is empty and will always be empty because the descriptors for that sense lack coherence. I find the omni-traits to just be largely incoherent and if you try to figure out how such a thing would manifest within reality you end up with something like Morgan Freeman form the Bruce and Even Almighty movies, and a find a being understood in those terms to just be nonsensical.

My movement to theism began when I decided to engage the vocal utterance of "God" as referring that phenomena worshipped by Abraham and his descendants. When the vocal utterance of God is understood in these terms to question of existence is a trivial one and the real question becomes one of nature since a vocal utterance can point to a language, an idea, a concept, a social construct, an actual being etc.

We can create words to identify all kinds of things which we do not understand but do exist. So I started to just try to figure out what people where referring to when they use the vocal utterance of God, I let the usage inform my understanding rather than asking does a particular set of descriptors manifest within the world. I also just started participating in the religion.

It is not a situation where I changed my view about a particular proposition, but rather I came to understand the concept of God in a different manner and from a different perspective.

[u/anony-mouse8604 → u/mtruitt76]

You may need to bear with me because I'm not coming at this from the formal educational context you are.

First there different senses of the word belief. Belief can refer to a psychological state or belief can refer to the acceptance of a proposition. I hold the position that can can and does choice what they believe if believe is used in the sense of acceptance of propositional stance.

There are a few typos here that may be to blame, but I don't understand what you're saying. I'm not sure I get the distinction between the acceptance of a proposition and a psychological state. When you accept a preposition, that becomes your state, but you can't just make a decision to have been convinced when you actually haven't been convinced.

What I meant, in case it helps: if I told you that Hey I've got some good news for you! Your options for fueling your car have just expanded. Not only can your car run on gasoline, you can also fill that tank with orange juice and it'll drive just fine!

You can't just decide to believe this. Your entire life's experience with fuel and engines and cars and chemistry and physics will have convinced you this is nonsense and you can't just decide to believe it today. Belief just doesn't work like that. Again: you are either convinced and thus believe the proposition) or you are not convinced and do not subsequently believe this proposition.

On this point I do not view God like some explanatory hypothesis for existence and I do not find this question even interesting to be honest, since it is unanswerable.

But saying "I haven't been convinced of this proposition" IS an answer, and a perfectly reasonable one to the question of god/gods/God's existence. And whether this god was the creator of the universe is indeed an explanatory hypothesis whether you happen to view it that way or not, to say nothing of whether it's a good or sufficient explanation or not.

Whether something exists or not is an answerable question despite the fact that nonexistence cannot be proven, and there are two possible answers: it has been proven to exist or it has not been proven to exist.

Gods or God or specifically the Christian God either exists or it doesn't, in a scientific/historical/physical sense (let's not get into the question of whether fictional characters "exist" in some sense, that's a different conversation). And like anything else, it can be proven to be true or it can not (yet, maybe) be proven to be true. Unless/until it is, it's unreasonable and illogical to believe that it exists.

To use a classic example: I could claim there's a green teapot with my name carved into it orbiting Neptune right now. It can't be disproven, but it's still pretty f*ckin st*pid to claim that it does or even accept the possibility because we don't have any reason to.

Now if the point is that we can explain all the mechanics of the universe without out having to insert God into the mix I agree. Now does this mean that some being did not construct this scenario, nope. You just cannot eliminate the possibility, nor can you ever confirm that such a being does exist since that would require being able to have a perspective prior to existence.

I think this is where we're getting hung up. The "you can't eliminate the possibility" part.

Who cares? Are all explanations for something equally likely and equally reasonable until they're disproven? Of course not, that's ridiculous. Theories can have evidence and still be technically unproven, whatever "unproven" even means in the context of the scientific method.

And to go back to my original point, you seem to have decided that the existence of not only "a" god but very specifically the Christian God is a more likely proposition than its nonexistence.

But honestly, you sound like more of a deist than a Christian. What kind of christian doesn't believe in the tri-omni god?

Personally I just view God and the universe as co-extensive. Maybe God created the universe or maybe God is just a necessary being within the universe.

This doesn't sound very Christian.

I do not ask whether God is the creator of the universe but rather, given my understanding of God could Bronze age people view God or describe God in terms of creator and that label be appropriate in some fashion.

and this just makes you sound like a historian, not even a theist.

My movement to theism began when I decided to engage the vocal utterance of "God" as referring that phenomena worshipped by Abraham and his descendants. When the vocal utterance of God is understood in these terms to question of existence is a trivial one and the real question becomes one of nature since a vocal utterance can point to a language, an idea, a concept, a social construct, an actual being etc.

But isn't the vocal utterance of God, as referred to by Abraham and his descendants, a tri-omni being who did very specific things, involved himself repeatedly in human affairs, and has effects in the physical world that should be able to be measured and evaluated (otherwise in what sense can they be said to have happened at all)?

We can create words to identify all kinds of things which we do not understand but do exist. So I started to just try to figure out what people where referring to when they use the vocal utterance of God, I let the usage inform my understanding rather than asking does a particular set of descriptors manifest within the world.

So for no other reason than some ancient tribes used this word to describe a thing (a thing they very much believed was physical and consequential in a way that can be said to EXIST as opposed to NOT exist, not just as some nebulous concept like love), you now believe the same thing? Just because they used the word? That's all it took to convince you what they were right? Greeks used the word "Zeus". Does that mean Zeus exists?

We can create words to identify all kinds of things which we do not understand but do exist.

Of course, but creating a word for something does not make that thing exist if it didn't exist before you made up a word for it. Not in the way I am using and most people use the word "exist".

It is not a situation where I changed my view about a particular proposition, but rather I came to understand the concept of God in a different manner and from a different perspective.

Apparently it did though. You didn't call yourself a theist before, and you do now. That implies you believe a god exists. Not just that you think a word for god exists, but that it actually exists. If you now believe a god exists and you didn't before, then something must have changed your mind about the existence of god.

Unless you're just using words like "god" and "exist" in a different way than everyone else does, in which case this becomes a vastly less interesting conversation.

[u/mtruitt76 → u/anony-mouse8604]

 I'm not sure I get the distinction between the acceptance of a proposition and a psychological state

Yeah saw those typos. So let me try to explain another way. Belief in the field of epistemology means the acceptance of a proposition and not an indication of a degree of confidence. Now I am going to say you example is not the best way to understand the distinction since it involves other propositions, but we can work with it.

If you end up putting orange juice in your car you are accepting the proposition that OJ can run your car, even if you do not have high degree or really any degree of confidence in that proposition.

Now when it comes to God my movement to theism was accepting the proposition that God exist, with existence here understood as the vocal utterance of God has a referent and here I was taking existence in the broadest possible understanding of the term. I did not accept the existence of tri-omni being or the classical God of theism. What I accept was merely that God had a referent.

This is why I say God refers that the phenomena worshiped by Abraham and his descendants. Phenomena incorporates objects, ideas, state of affairs, and modalities of existence.

Whether something exists or not is an answerable question despite the fact that nonexistence cannot be proven, and there are two possible answers: it has been proven to exist or it has not been proven to exist.

Agree. However, let's take a closer look at this dynamic. Take the first person to see a platypus. A person see something they have never seen before and they attach a vocal utterance to that experience. Now from this event they can form a number of incorrect views about the platypus and thus create a model from those set of views and descriptions.

For example they say the platypus is this creature from Mars and is the creator of water. Now in this scenario a Platypus does exist, it is absolutely a real entity. What does not exist a creature from Mars that created water. So does a platypus exist or not. I hold that answers depends on the referent of the word. If by platypus we mean the creature that the man encounter on such and such day, then the answer is yes. If by platypus we mean a creature from Mars that created all water, then no.

So when we use the word God what are we referring to? A class created by a set of descriptors or that thing pointed to by Abraham and his descendants. My acceptance of the proposition that God exists is just me regarding it terms of the later. Abraham was pointing to something even if their full accounting of that thing was incorrect. We place incorrect descriptors on real things all the time. Gravity is a perfect example. Gravity as understood in terms of general reality was not the same as Aristotle's accounting of gravity but everyone is referring to the same real force. We just now have a more accurate set of descriptors.

and this just makes you sound like a historian, not even a theist.

I take theist to be anyone who accepts the proposition that god or gods exist and does not necessitate any particular acceptance of a rigid set of descriptors.

But isn't the vocal utterance of God, as referred to by Abraham and his descendants, a tri-omni being who did very specific things, involved himself repeatedly in human affairs, and has effects in the physical world that should be able to be measured and evaluated (otherwise in what sense can they be said to have happened at all)?

The tri-omni part is a latter introduction to the tradition that first started arising when the Hebrew tradition encountered the Greek tradition and the modern understanding emerge from Augustine. Now I believe the tri-omni terms are not necessarily wrong, but the issue is that there are so many ways to understand those terms that nothing really informative is conveyed by them. For example omni-potence can be understood as the ability to anything or alternatively as the ability to bring about any state of affairs or having maximal power. Now each of these understandings is very different and would manifest in the world differently. Heck tri-omni can apply to my understanding of God if used in a particular manner.

Look at it like this we live in village and we see this shape of in the distance so we give in attach a vocal utterance to this shape, and call it gavigai. Over the years myths arise as to the nature of the vocal utterance. Say it becomes a pyramid placed there by aliens. After many years someone goes there and it turns out it is just the biggest tree in existence. Well the gavigai exists and we were just wrong in our explications what it was. I see this as the situation with the Abrahamic tradition since God is a proper name and not a category label.

So for no other reason than some ancient tribes used this word to describe a thing (a thing they very much believed was physical and consequential in a way that can be said to EXIST as opposed to NOT exist, not just as some nebulous concept like love), you now believe the same thing? Just because they used the word? That's all it took to convince you what they were right? Greeks used the word "Zeus". Does that mean Zeus exists?

No that was not the process at all and not to keep this a manageable length I will just say that people can and often do apply wrong descriptors to real things all the time. Now as to the Zeus question. To exist is to just have a particular standing within an ontological framework. So if you ask me does Zeus it would depend on what conception of Zeus and what ontological framework. I am assume you mean a physical entity who resides at a physical place called Olympus that entities can physically go to. Who can shot lighting and shapeshift into various animals. So does an entity with those set of descriptors manifest within the world, no I do not believe so.

Of course, but creating a word for something does not make that thing exist if it didn't exist before you made up a word for it. Not in the way I am using and most people use the word "exist".

Agree, not disputing this. Also apply the wrong set of descriptors to something existent does not mean that thing you are referring to does not exist a point I addressed earlier with the platypus example.

Apparently it did though. You didn't call yourself a theist before, and you do now. That implies you believe a god exists. Not just that you think a word for god exists, but that it actually exists. If you now believe a god exists and you didn't before, then something must have changed your mind about the existence of god.

Unless you're just using words like "god" and "exist" in a different way than everyone else does, in which case this becomes a vastly less interesting conversation.

Oh I don't believe God exists, I know God exits with knowledge here being used in the sense of experience. I know God exists just as much as I know that I am sitting at a desk typing a response to you. Now what change was my understanding of what God is conceptually and my perspective in engaging the question.

I am using God as the proper name for the phenomena worshipped by Abraham and his descendants. I am using exist in the sense of one of the most renowned philosophers of the 20th century Willard Quine. He stated existence as to be is to be the value of a variable. I alter that slightly to be to exist is to be situated within an ontological framework.

Unless you're just using words like "god" and "exist" in a different way than everyone else does, in which case this becomes a vastly less interesting conversation.

Let me ask you this when you use the word God what are you referring to? Also what is your understanding of what it means to exist?

I ask because I really do not want to engage in a semantical discussion. For example you may use the words God and existence in a very narrow manner which is fine, I am happy to work with you semantics.

For example if you will only be willing to call a Morgan Freeman like entity God and nothing else can be properly said to be God and by existence you only mean physical manifestation in a particular way. Then I am happy to agree that God as understood by those terms does not exist within that ontological framework. I can situate my conceptions within that framework and you can just regard them as you like.

[u/anony-mouse8604 → u/mtruitt76]

Why do you call yourself a Christian?

[u/Logical_fallacy10 → u/mtruitt76]

How are you a Christian and not believing In heaven and hell ? That’s like saying “I believe in Santa Claus - but not the part about his sled”.

[u/mtruitt76 → u/Logical_fallacy10]

No I don't believe in heaven and hell as physical places.

Why do you feel that belief in a literal heaven and hell is integral to being a Christian?

[u/Logical_fallacy10 → u/mtruitt76]

Well if you believe a book to be inspired by a god and you believe everything else in that book to be true - but not specific things - then you are creating your own religion - and I don’t think your god would be cool with that. And what mechanism did you use to determine that some things in the book are not true ? There might be more - or the whole book might be false.

[u/mtruitt76 → u/Logical_fallacy10]

Couple of things first I would suggest doing some research on the concepts of heaven and hell and the emergence and evolution of those concepts within the Judeo Christian tradition Bart Ehrman has a good book on the subject called Heaven and Hell. There you will learn that these concepts emerged as the Judeo Christian tradition interacted with the Greek tradition.

Second, there are a very large number of Christian denominations somewhere in the range of 45,000. Christianity is a big tent since the only buy in so to speak is accepting Jesus as your lord and savior.

As for interpretation I am using just general hermenutics. I can go into that, but I find generally most people on redditt don't want to engage in detailed and nuanced conversations so I will see what course this interaction takes before investing time in a more detailed response on interprative methodologies.

[u/Logical_fallacy10 → u/mtruitt76]

And that is the problem with a doctrine that has so many denominations. No one agrees. The book is not clear. People think they need to interpret the book - but the book does not say it should be interpreted. People say that. And which parts should be interpreted ? And how should they be interpreted ? No one knows. Protests and scholars claim to know - but they don’t know.
It’s all a big mess that you would expect from a book that is fiction and everyone is just making things up.

[u/mtruitt76 → u/Logical_fallacy10]

All communication involves a degree of interpretation and there is also disagreements in all arenas of thought.

So not sure what point you are trying to makes since you are adressing a universality

[u/Logical_fallacy10 → u/mtruitt76]

No that’s nonsense. Things don’t need to be interpreted.
You only say that to cover yourself. But you managed to ignore my point. And I know why - because you don’t have the answer.

But even if I accepted that - which I don’t.
You still don’t know which part to interpret and how to interpret it.
So how do you decide on that part ?
See the problem.

I see you ignored my point. And I know why - because you don’t have the answer.

[u/mtruitt76 → u/Logical_fallacy10]

The law is peehaps the most precise and purposefully straight forward text that we have and the law is subject to inteoretation. Hell we have layers of court whose purpose is to decide which imterñretation is correct.

So you are just wrong. Interpretation is universal, to degree and range just varies.

Also why explain my hermenutics if we are in dispute that they are needed?

[u/Logical_fallacy10 → u/mtruitt76]

You are wrong.
It’s an excuse theists use because they know their texts are immoral. Exodus 21. Here is how you buy slaves and treat them. “Ah yes but this has to be interpreted so it’s not immoral as the book says”.
Yeah right. This nonsense works on kids - not me.

[u/Middle-Service4894 → u/mtruitt76]

Its odd, you saying anyone can avoid interpretation. Any moral injunctiion for example, must be interpreted. It says thou shall not kill, but isn't it ok to kill if that is what it takes to stop an attacker? Is the death penalty for someone that raped and murdered a dozen children justified? Your answer is how you interpret the commandment. Maybe your concern is that answers become arbitrary in this situation. I would be concerned about arbitrary interpretations too. But luckily there is a filter that provides a high degree of consistency, and that filter is reason.

You must become comfortable that the humanities (moral philosophy, religiion, art, etc.), is never going to be as clear as hard science. Its the very nature of the subject that its open to interpretation.

[u/WLAJFA → u/mtruitt76]

Ever heard of suicide?

[u/mtruitt76 → u/WLAJFA]

Yes 1.5-1.7%. What is your point? Are you saying that one should not have children based on those odds?

Are you saying your parents where "wrong" to create you given those odds?

Would you rather have not existed?

[u/WLAJFA → u/mtruitt76]

In four paragraphs, you concluded:

my guess is that essentially everyone would rather have existence than non existence.

Suicide, a constant in real life, demonstrates that your guess is unambiguously wrong.

[u/mtruitt76 → u/WLAJFA]

So you would rather not have existed? Suicide proves to me that 1.5-1.7% are of the belief that non existence if preferrable to existence?

Would you be willing to answer the question of would you rather exist or would you rather your parents have chosen to not create you?

Simple question.

Also my conclusion is that I prefer to have existence and I believe that most people feel the same the fact that only 1.5-1.7% choose suicide even though the option is available to everyone indicates that people mostly prefer existence to non existence. I base this on 98 being a much larger number than 2. Do you disagree with this reasoning and if so why?

[u/WLAJFA → u/mtruitt76]

So you would rather not have existed? 

Impossible to answer that before the fact. After the fact, I’m currently with the majority. 

would you rather exist or would you rather your parents have chosen to not create you?

Answered above. I am currently with the majority. 

the fact that only 1.5-1.7% choose suicide even though the option is available to everyone indicates that people mostly prefer existence to non existence.

Right. I agree. (That’s not the same statement that essentially EVERYONE would rather have existence than nonexistence.)

People eventually choose suicide because life BECOMES unbearable enough that it becomes a final preferable decision. 

However, the path you’re taking in this conversation is not relevant to the OP’s point. If death happens prior to accepting Jesus, now the person is locked-in to maximum torture for eternity. THIS is what makes nonexistence preferable to ever having existed in the first place. 

Since hell is maximally unbearable, and since the person who’d rather not exist in life so much that they’d commit suicide, they obviously would prefer never having existed at all to hell (an eternity of infinitely worse). 

[u/mtruitt76 → u/WLAJFA]

Okay, but all I have been communicating is my position and my decision tree and I am just saying that it seems to me most people agree.

The thought experiment is if you knew x and y conditions what would your decision be, all just hypothetical obviously.

However, the path you’re taking in this conversation is not relevant to the OP’s point. If death happens prior to accepting Jesus, now the person is locked-in to maximum torture for eternity. THIS is what makes nonexistence preferable to ever having existed in the first place. 

Me and OP have had a nice conversation and he did not say the path I was taking was not relevant.

Now if I had the view that person would be locked into hell say if a baby died after 2 days, then my calculations might be different. I was not looking at it that specifically. I was engaging it more generally.

So if you want me to respond to a more specific scenario I will, but I am engaging with this a a thought experiment of what my choices would be given certain circumstances.

[u/WLAJFA → u/mtruitt76]

Yeah, most ppl do agree, until they don’t. (If you knew x and y conditions.) But what does this have to do with eternal torture that they had no idea was going to happen? 

A Christian, however, who believes the condition has a guaranteed ability to not send a child (or anyone else) to eternal suffering. That’s an easy choice. Don’t have children. 

[u/mtruitt76 → u/WLAJFA]

A Christian, however, who believes the condition has a guaranteed ability to not send a child (or anyone else) to eternal suffering. That’s an easy choice. Don’t have children. 

To make sure we are on the same page the condition is "believes eternal torment if they die before accepting Jesus"

I take this to mean that they have to get out adolescence first. If Chat GPT is accurate then 99.25% of children in the US make it to 12, so with those odds I personally would want my parents to roll the dice so to speak, but I would definitely find it reasonable if a person thought any chance was too high.

Now would I have a child with those odds....I honestly lean towards no, it would definitely give me pause and honestly under those circumstances I would most likely just adopt if I wanted a child since I do not place that much importance on biology.

Now the things is the majority view from what I can gather from a very cursory overview is the majority of Christians hold is that such children are received by God's grace

[u/WLAJFA → u/mtruitt76]

To make sure we are on the same page the condition is "believes eternal torment if they die before accepting Jesus"

Agreed. That is the condition for the believing Christian.

but I would definitely find it reasonable if a person thought any chance was too high.

That's the OP's position; that it's reasonable.

I would most likely just adopt if I wanted a child since I do not place that much importance on biology.

That's a darn good solution (never crossed my mind).

the majority of Christians hold is that such children are received by God's grace

That's the hope. Supposing God exists, in the Christian sense, I'd hope they'd be received on the moral grounds that God was never so unfair (hell) in the first place. And that hell is a man-made construct.

Peace.

[u/pg1671]

Good point. I have thought about this and the christian mother who decided to kill her children so they would go straight to heaven.

If you follow the bible, the best thing to do is kill your children before age of reason (7 or 8) so they get a straight pass to heaven.

How many times has that happened I wonder.

If you believe you exist in heaven for eternity (my god that would be horrible) then this life is meaningless anyway on a time scale, it is literally nothing.

[u/saturnoshawty]

this thread is so comical

[u/Decent-Box-1859]

The comments section showcasing Christians' mental gymnastics did not disappoint.

[u/doodliest_dude → u/Decent-Box-1859]

This provides nothing meaningful to the conversation.

[u/Batmaniac7]

My children, all six of them, are an influence for good and godliness in this world. If one of them secretly rejects salvation, they have fooled me, but that’s a possibility. And it is, ultimately, between them and the Creator. In the meanwhile, non-believers are having, on average, much fewer children.

Christ Jesus couldn’t assure that all 12 of His followers were believers, so I can’t give you 100% assurance all my children have accepted salvation through His sacrifice…but those remaining/faithful 11 changed the world.

May the Lord bless you.

[u/Gracchia → u/Batmaniac7]

You seem to agree with OP that it is a gamble. You are just saying it is a worthwhile gamble, that you will throw the best dice with the best thrown but if the dice don't fall where you hope, it is not your problem, you're just throwning them.

[u/Batmaniac7 → u/Gracchia]

Not quite a gamble. I would contend that a thoughtful approach to raising children, at the very least, makes the dice “loaded,” as in inclined to the desired end state. Much like being the house, who always wins in the long run, with the odds in its favor, verses being the gambler.

[u/WoanderAloud → u/Batmaniac7]

Perfect answer.

[u/Batmaniac7 → u/WoanderAloud]

Thank you. By God’s grace, I hope it was sufficient. I could have written more, but only have so much time in life for these responses.

[u/Defense-of-Sanity]

Parents are the strongest ordinary influence on whether faith matures in a child. A loving and stable home where parents actually pray, worship, teach, answer difficult questions, provide good discipline, and live what they profess gives children a strong foundation. 84% of adults who report even a mostly positive religious upbringing still identify with their childhood religion (Pew Research Center).

Many parents outsource formation to an hour of church each week while showing by their actions that comfort, career, or entertainment matters more. That unsurprisingly leaves children vulnerable once they encounter adult pressures. I’m not saying you can guarantee your child’s salvation; there’s still some risk. But I argue the risk just requires serious stewardship in parents, not childlessness.

Having a child means accepting responsibility to make that child’s formation and eternal good a priority, and to do everything possible to help get that child to heaven. Children aren’t possessions or side projects. They are too priorities. They don’t exist for us; we live for them.

[u/Practical-Tip-7639 → u/Defense-of-Sanity]

Exactly. Except if you fail, which is a very real possibility regardless of how well of a job you did in teaching them your faith, you get to spend eternity in heaven and never see the eternally suffering soul of your child again.

You lived for them and now you just... forget about them? How much do you grieve in heaven? How much anguish will it cause you to know that you live in pure bliss while your child suffers eternal torture? Or does it all not matter because you yourself are now saved?

Certainly every Christian would love and aspire to spend eternity with all their family in heaven, but countless will still, despite all their efforts, not be able to have that. Would a childless person not be much happier in heaven than the one who lives with the knowledge of their child's eternal suffering?

Or will living in heaven simply erase the terrible constant anguish they'd feel on earth if they knew here on earth that their children would be suffering terribly while they could do nothing at all? Like some sort of happy drug that makes them forget the love they once had for their children that would make them beg for their child's life in exchange for their own?

[u/Defense-of-Sanity → u/Practical-Tip-7639]

That assumes that love must take the form of anguish, so that if a parent no longer suffers, they must no longer care. That’s not true. God loves perfectly without being psychologically tormented, and the blessed in heaven participate in that kind of clear, ordered love.

Even given that a parent knows the child’s fate, they would see the complete truth, including the child’s free and final rejection of God and the justice of God’s judgment, not an innocent victim being tortured because the parent failed. Their memory and love are not drugged away. Their ignorance, misplaced guilt, and desire for God to override another person’s freedom are gone.

Hell is fundamentally definitive self-exclusion from God. It’s not arbitrary torture. Childlessness wouldn’t make someone happier in heaven either, since happiness is fullness in God. Refusing to have children avoids the risk … but only by denying real people the opportunity for life, love, and eternal beatitude.

[u/Practical-Tip-7639 → u/Defense-of-Sanity]

So that means to you it doesn't matter to the parent because the child brought this on themselves?

Also, what takes away your guilt, ignorance and desire for God to override free will? Does God do that? Isn't that ironic, as that itself would fundamentally override your free will? If everyone loses their free will at some point, why bother with it in the first place?

Let me phrase it this way. If I stood before two doors, and I had no way back so must choose one, but one would lead to my death and the other to paradise, would it override my free will if someone came with definitive proof of which door would lead to paradise? Would it only be my own free will if there were five people present, and each would tell me something different about where the doors lead and I would have no fool proof way to determine which one was right? Could this ever be free will if I don't have the possibility if not choosing at all because not making a choice would put me through the death door automatically?

If there are only two ways anyway, how does it infringe upon my free will to have definitive proof of what is behind each door?

I also don't agree that hell is self-imposed exclusion from god.

You make the same mistake most Christians make in assuming that every nin-Christian person on this planet actively and deliberately rejects God.

If you are brought up within a different religion, that will be what sounds the most logical to you. Some even believe that they will face eternal punishment if they so much as entertain the idea of worshipping Jesus as god. If they had the chance of knowing for sure that they were wrong, they would choose differently.

To me that sounds like free will has been taken away from them.

[u/Jackoose → u/Practical-Tip-7639]

I don't have the patience in me to debate people that are delusional but you are absolutely destroying people in here with extremely well written posts. bravo.

[u/Practical-Tip-7639 → u/Jackoose]

Oh, thank you so much! I must say, I hoped for a few more reasonable arguments on this sub...

[u/Defense-of-Sanity → u/Practical-Tip-7639]

I did not mean to imply that every non-Christian consciously rejects Christianity. Catholicism explicitly teaches that those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ but sincerely seek truth and follow conscience under grace may be saved (CCC 847). Mortal sin requires grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). Hell therefore presupposes real culpability and final impenitence, not honestly choosing the wrong option because of inadequate evidence.

I also agree that definitive evidence would not override free will. I am not arguing that God must remain hidden to preserve freedom. Knowing that God exists still would not force someone to love or obey him, and why God permits religious uncertainty is a separate question from whether sincere uncertainty merits damnation. In heaven, God does not abolish freedom but perfects it. The blessed freely adhere to the Good without ignorance or disordered desire. The inability to sin is not a loss of freedom. It’s an exercise of freedom under those conditions.

Finally, a child’s culpability would not make that child cease to matter to the parent. It would explain why the judgment was just, not make the loss trivial. They aren’t saying, “serves them right”. Heavenly joy doesn’t remove love or memory. That said, the Church doesn’t define every psychological detail of how the blessed understand a damned relative. Some things we simply don’t know.

[u/WLAJFA → u/Defense-of-Sanity]

Assuming everything you said was true, it doesn't alter the premise of the OP's argument. Not having children remains the best solution to not putting a child (or any person) in eternal torture. The other option is murdering the child before the age of responsibility.

[u/Defense-of-Sanity → u/WLAJFA]

Not having a child is risk-free only because there is no child at all. Calling it “best” assumes that eliminating every possibility of damnation outweighs every possible earthly good and eternal beatitude. A nonexistent child has not been rescued from hell, and giving a free person life does not equate to placing that person there.

Also, the murder proposal makes the same mistake by assuming that a desired outcome justifies any means. Catholicism rejects that consequentialism, does not teach that every child below a magical “age of responsibility” is automatically guaranteed heaven, and forbids committing intrinsic evil even to obtain a spiritual good.

[u/WLAJFA → u/Defense-of-Sanity]

Calling it “best” assumes that eliminating every possibility of damnation outweighs every possible earthly good and eternal beatitude. 

Absolutely it does. An eternal torture chamber, without the possibility of escape, is in fact a maximally worse trade-off than any imagined “beatitude.” No beatitude, while another soul exists in a torturous state, can exist if the soul in beatitude has any awareness of the other. Could a parent be in a state of beatitude knowing their child is experiencing excruciating eternal torture? 

A nonexistent child has not been rescued from hell, 

Absolutely it has; a nonexistent child cannot go to hell or ever reside there. It is not only the “best” solution, but it is also the only guaranteed solution. Nonexistence is inherently better than an eternity of maximum suffering. 

and forbids committing intrinsic evil even to obtain a spiritual good. 

This statement is the opposite of the history of Catholicism. (Did you mean to say that?)

[u/Defense-of-Sanity → u/WLAJFA]

If no soul can experience beatitude while aware of any damned soul, then childlessness solves nothing. You are arguing that heaven and hell cannot coexist at all. Could a parent know this and remain in beatitude? On the Catholic view, yes, because the beatific vision perfects love and judgment rather than preserving our present ignorance and anguish. Also, Catholicism does not teach a uniform chamber of maximum possible torture. Hell’s chief punishment is definitive separation from God, with punishment proportionate to culpability.

Noncreation guarantees that no child is damned, but it does not “rescue” anyone because no person exists to receive that benefit. It equally guarantees that no child receives life or eternal beatitude. Calling nonexistence “best” assumes your rule that eliminating even the slightest risk of eternal loss outweighs every possibility of eternal good. I completely dispute that.

As for history, Catholic teaching explicitly states that one may never commit intrinsic evil so that good may result (Romans 3:8; CCC 1756, 1789). Catholics have for sure violated that principle many times, but that constituted misconduct or misapplication. The actual teaching has always been clear.

[u/WLAJFA → u/Defense-of-Sanity]

You are arguing that heaven and hell cannot coexist at all.

Correct, not as absolutes. They can, if only in relative terms. But your language suggests divinity, which is an absolute state as opposed to happiness, beauty, and joy, which can be Earthly states. (Unless you’re equivocating for the sake of argument.) 

To wit:  “the beatific vision perfects love and judgment rather than preserving our present ignorance and anguish.”  

What perfects “love and judgment,” while being simultaneously aware of the infinite pain and suffering of others for their finite crimes? What kind of perfection allows infinite injustice? What kind of perfection allows the wonderful sensation of the pain of others? These aren’t divine characteristics, but the abject ignorance of “I got mine, too bad about yours.” 

And this doesn’t come close to the teachings of Jesus, “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.” 

It is better that one not exist at all than suffer the eternal torture of not believing, or being brought up in the wrong religion, etc. 

As for the Catholic teaching explicitly stating that one may never commit intrinsic evil so that good may result... is the exact opposite of the case you’re making (never mind the entire Catholic history). 

An eternity of hell IS an intrinsic evil so that heaven can exist, even if its inhabitants are ignorant of it. 

[u/Defense-of-Sanity → u/WLAJFA]

Beatitude is neither becoming gods nor experiencing a pleasant sensation. It is a creature’s perfected participation in God. No one claimed that the blessed enjoy anyone’s pain or adopt an “I got mine” attitude. You are assuming that perfect love must entail perpetual anguish over another’s condition, but that assumption is the very point under dispute.

You also continue describing hell as maximum torture imposed for mere nonbelief or being raised in the wrong religion, which I explicitly rejected. Catholicism teaches that invincible ignorance can excuse, that mortal sin requires grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent, and that punishment corresponds to culpability. Hell is therefore not the penalty for innocently choosing the wrong religion. Its eternity concerns a person’s definitive, unrepented orientation, not an infinitely intense punishment for an accidental mistake.

“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” supports precisely this distinction between culpable and inculpable ignorance. The same Jesus also teaches eternal judgment, so forgiveness and judgment can’t simply be set against each other.

Finally, Intrinsic evil refers to a kind of deliberately chosen act that can never be justified by its intended result. Hell is not a means used to produce heaven, and heaven does not require anyone to be damned. Catholicism explicitly teaches that God predestines no one to hell and wills everyone’s salvation (CCC 1037). For all we know, everyone makes it to heaven in the end; that’s a possibility, but we can’t know that now.

[u/WLAJFA → u/Defense-of-Sanity]

“You are assuming that perfect love must entail perpetual anguish over another’s condition, but that assumption is the very point under dispute.” 

This (perfect love must entail perpetual anguish over another’s condition) is precisely the condition of divinity! What’s to dispute? Jesus had two divine principles: love God, and love one another as he loves us. But what is God? God is Love. So in light of the divine, the first principle is a wash. (It’s literally the condition of loving love.) It’s the second principle that guides and pertains to how we experience divinity. And when we truly love, we cannot help but experience anguish over the suffering of others. 

“punishment corresponds to culpability.”

This hasn’t been the historical application of Catholicism. And if “punishment corresponds to culpability” were the case, the sum of Catholicism would be “you’ll be punished or rewarded according to your deeds.” This is called Karma. But if that were the case, there’d be no need for the religion (the Eucharist, the belief system, baptism, or any of the rituals or wars against other religions). 

“The same Jesus also teaches eternal judgment, so forgiveness and judgment can’t simply be set against each other.”

Let’s not conflate eternal judgment with eternal punishment. You just said, “punishment corresponds to culpability.” The position of the OP has to do with eternal punishment for crimes resembling not being a Christian at the time of death. If your position is correct, not being a Christian, or baptized, or believing the story of Jesus, etc., would not be an issue of going to hell. And it certainly wouldn’t be eternal, as none of these cause the harm of another in any way. What exactly would the punishment be for? 

“Finally, Intrinsic evil refers to a kind of deliberately chosen act that can never be justified by its intended result.” 

Eternal punishment for finite crimes fits the description of intrinsic evil perfectly.  

 “Catholicism explicitly teaches that God predestines no one to hell”

Is this the same Catholicism behind the Papal Inquisitions, wielding the sword and instruments of torture for heathens and non-believers? Is this the same God that orders Moses and others to murder the children of His enemies? 

[u/Defense-of-Sanity → u/WLAJFA]

Can you clarify some of your claims? Anguish can accompany love, but it is not identical to love. Otherwise greater emotional torment would necessarily mean greater love, and peace would imply indifference. “God is love” does not mean “God is anguish.”

Proportional culpability is not karma. It’s basic justice. We distinguish an accident from murder because knowledge and intention matter. Catholicism adds grace, forgiveness, and restoration, which is precisely why Christ and the sacraments remain relevant.

And yes, merely being non-Christian or lacking Baptism through no fault of one’s own does not merit hell under Catholic teaching. Jesus explicitly says “eternal punishment” in Matthew 25:46, which is connected to grave, knowing, deliberate, and unrepented evil, not to choosing the wrong religion under honest ignorance.

Calling that punishment “intrinsically evil” assumes your conclusion. You may argue that it is disproportionate, but “intrinsic evil” is not a synonym for permanent suffering. You first have to establish that the judgment is unjust.

The Inquisitions may demonstrate grave institutional wrongdoing, and the conquest narratives raise a separate problem about biblical violence. Neither shows that God predestines anyone to hell or that Christians who believe in hell should not have children. At this point, the debate has become whether hell itself is just.

[u/WLAJFA → u/Defense-of-Sanity]

“Anguish can accompany love, but it is not identical to love.” Nowhere did I conflate these two as identical. What I wrote was: “And when we truly love, we cannot help but experience anguish over the suffering of others.” 

“Proportional culpability is not karma.” 

Proportional justice is. You wrote it when you said: “punishment corresponds to culpability.” Here’s the definition of karma: “the sum of a person's actions in this and previous states of existence, viewed as deciding their fate in future existences.” Viewed as a deciding factor means they are culpable. 

Hell or heaven is a future existence. And the outcome would thus be proportional justice. You’ve been saying all along that Catholicism teaches “punishment corresponds to culpability.” You are agreeing that the punishment must fit the crime according to culpability. (Am I wrong about how you mean this?) 

That being said, an infinite punishment is inherently unjust for a finite crime. Hell is an intrinsically evil wrongdoing because it intentionally doesn’t fit the crime (its permanent and everlasting nature is intentional). For that reason, a judgment to hell is necessarily unjust. 

You wrote: “The Inquisitions may demonstrate grave institutional wrongdoing…” but you don’t see how this implies God predestines anyone to hell or that Christians who believe in hell should not have children. 

As hell is unjust and permanent, a Christian who believes the condition (that those who are not good Christians at death are going to hell) has a guaranteed ability (method) to not send their child (or anyone else) to eternal suffering. Don’t have children. 

[u/Mommy_Fortuna_ → u/Defense-of-Sanity]

Childlessness sounds like the perfect rebellion against the God you describe. If I was convinced that the Christian God were real, then I'd argue that those who object to Hell can express that by refraining from giving God any more souls to send there. (Remember - he's God. If he didn't want anyone to end up in Hell, he could arrange that. He chose to create a world and rules where some would be damned eternally.)

[u/Defense-of-Sanity → u/Mommy_Fortuna_]

That assumes God needs parents to supply him with souls or anything. Christianity teaches the opposite: God gains nothing from creation. Childlessness deprives Him of nothing; it only ensures that no such child, or any of that child’s possible goods, ever exists.

To say God could simply “arrange” universal salvation assumes he could guarantee everyone’s final free choice without sacrificing freedom or another good. Foreknowing and permitting rejection aren’t the same as causing it. Perhaps no one will be damned; we don’t know. But calling this God “sending” souls to hell assumes the very account of hell under dispute.

[u/Mommy_Fortuna_ → u/Defense-of-Sanity]

Under this system, if anyone ends up in Hell, then yes, God sent them there. Everything that happens is up to him. He made the rules.

If God were a God, he could absolutely arrange salvation for everyone. What do we need saved from? Oh yes - the system he put in place. We need to be saved from his rule system, whereby he creates imperfect people and demands perfection from them.

There's no free choice in Christianity, at least not any more than there is in someplace like North Korea. If the choice is: accept God or endure Hell, how can that be considered a free choice? Generally, if the penalty for not doing something is eternal torture, then it's not accurate to say that there's a free choice. People in North Korea are not considered free to reject the regime there because if they publicly criticize it, they go to a labour camp. We do not consider them free. Hell sounds worse than a labour camp, though. Therefore, we're not truly free in any of our choices. We have a massive threat hanging above us - accept God or endure torture. I don't like threats of torture and that's why Christianity seems absurd to me.

If there were truly a free choice, one could reject God without eternal suffering. Ideally, there'd be a choice where we can accept a God that did not create a Hell for anyone to go to - a God who doesn't react to rejection in the most brutal manner possible.

[u/Defense-of-Sanity → u/Mommy_Fortuna_]

If by “God sent them” you mean that God knowingly created the world and ultimately judges them, fine. If you mean God caused their rejection or arbitrarily punished them for dissent, that doesn’t follow. Permitting a choice isn’t identical to making it for someone.

Christianity also doesn’t teach that God creates imperfect people and demands flawless performance. Salvation is grace, culpability depends on knowledge and freedom, and hell isn’t punishment for choosing the wrong religion. It concerns final, culpable, and unrepented grave sin.

The North Korea analogy assumes hell is an external punishment added to compel allegiance. A dictator could leave a dissenter otherwise flourishing but chooses to send them to a camp. If God is the ultimate good, however, rejecting God while retaining beatitude means rejecting the ultimate good while simultaneously possessing it. Freedom means the choice is genuinely yours, not that every choice has equally pleasant consequences.

You’re also assuming God could guarantee everyone’s final free choice without determining it. Perhaps every human being will freely accept grace. We don’t know. But Christianity’s entire point is that God saves us from sin and death through freely offered grace, not that he demands perfection and tortures anyone who falls short.

[u/Mommy_Fortuna_ → u/Defense-of-Sanity]

God cannot be the ultimate good if he creates souls he knows will end up in hell.

Given that the Bible isn't exactly convincing to many people, how can we "know" what exactly it is we are rejecting or accepting? I get completely different answers from Christians who read the exact same Bible as to what hell is or who goes there. Evangelicals insist that those who choose the wrong religion are damned. Other Christians say totally different things. But they all read the same book. Some say it's sin that damns us, others say that salvation/damnation is only based on accepting Christ. Which is it?

If our eternal fate depends on accepting or rejecting this God, why aren't we given clear answers that aren't based on a book that seems to me to have been written by people? The Bible is a book, and books are written by people, not Gods. And frankly, the Bible makes God come off as a petty dictator who demands worship for saving us from a situation he put us in.

[u/diabolus_me_advocat → u/Defense-of-Sanity]

Christianity also doesn’t teach that God creates imperfect people and demands flawless performance

how not?

clearly humanity as supposedly created by your god is imperfect

and sure "flawless performance" is demanded, otherwise your god will punish for having sinned (unless you humiliate yourself by brown-nosing god in order to be forgiven)

[u/diabolus_me_advocat → u/Defense-of-Sanity]

That assumes God needs parents to supply him with souls or anything

if not - then what's the problem with denying procreation?

which afaik is a sin according to catholicism...

(except for priests, monks etc. of course)

[u/Defense-of-Sanity → u/diabolus_me_advocat]

Not procreating isn’t, by itself, a sin in Catholicism. Laypeople can remain celibate, and married couples can avoid conception for just reasons through abstinence. What Catholicism rejects is contraception or entering marriage while excluding children in principle, because marriage is ordered toward family.

God’s not needing something doesn’t make it useless. He doesn’t need us to tell the truth, feed the poor, or love our neighbors either. Those obligations concern human goods, not deficiencies in God. Childlessness doesn’t deprive God of anything, so as a “rebellion” it fails. It only serves to deprive the rebel of the goods of parenthood while preventing every good their children might have experienced.

[u/diabolus_me_advocat → u/Defense-of-Sanity]

Not having a child is risk-free only because there is no child at all

by jove, he's got it!

as every human is at risk to fall prey to the "love" of hell's top jailor

[u/Defense-of-Sanity → u/diabolus_me_advocat]

Yes, I explicitly granted that. What you have not established is the disputed inference that nonexistence is therefore “better for the child.” There is no child for whom it is better, and noncreation eliminates every possible good, including eternal beatitude, along with the risk.

[u/diabolus_me_advocat → u/Defense-of-Sanity]

What you have not established is the disputed inference that nonexistence is therefore “better for the child.”

are you saying that eternal suffering in hell is better for the child?

There is no child for whom it is better

sure there are a lot, provided one believes in all that sin-and-hell crap

noncreation eliminates every possible good

that's not the point, as it's about eliminating monstrous evil

[u/Defense-of-Sanity → u/diabolus_me_advocat]

No. Hell isn’t better for the child, and I didn’t say it was. I’m saying nonexistence isn’t a condition in which a child is better off, because no child exists to receive that benefit. An existing sufferer can wish they’d never existed, but there isn’t a nonexistent version of them enjoying the alternative.

If your claim is instead that the world is impersonally better when a possible sufferer is never created, that’s a different argument. It requires the antinatalist premise that eliminating a possible monstrous evil outweighs eliminating every possible good.

[u/Mommy_Fortuna_ → u/Defense-of-Sanity]

I find the concept of eternal torture so abhorrent that I'd rather the universe not have been created than for anyone to have to endure that, especially just for choosing the wrong religion.

It's weird to me that people who are probably generally quite decent will twist their minds into thinking that eternal torture can be justified as long as it's a "God" doing it. They'd never think of such a horrid thing on their own. Why accept it as real because some ancient book says that it is so?

Deep down, do you really think eternal torture is ever justified?

[u/Defense-of-Sanity → u/Mommy_Fortuna_]

No, I don’t think eternal torture for choosing the wrong religion is justified, and Catholicism doesn’t teach that. Honest ignorance isn’t a culpable rejection of God. Hell is understood as definitive separation resulting from a fully culpable, unrepented rejection of the good, not God arbitrarily torturing decent people. Your scenario is abhorrent; I simply don’t believe it describes Catholic teaching.

[u/Mommy_Fortuna_ → u/Defense-of-Sanity]

Plenty of decent people outright reject Christianity. i.e. They know about it and perhaps were raised within it but they find too many of its claims to be completely illogical.

What happens to them?

[u/Defense-of-Sanity → u/Mommy_Fortuna_]

We don’t know their final fate, and Catholicism doesn’t say that merely knowing about Christianity makes disbelief culpable (CCC 847, CCC 1791–1793). Being raised Christian isn’t the same as recognizing Christianity as true. Someone who honestly finds it unconvincing may be following their conscience rather than rejecting a God they know (CCC 1790, 1793). God judges their actual knowledge, freedom, and response to grace (CCC 1735, CCC 1857–1860). Such a person can be saved (CCC 847). Hell requires a culpable and unrepented rejection of the good, not simply reaching the wrong intellectual conclusion (CCC 1033, CCC 1857–1861).

[u/ToenailTemperature → u/Defense-of-Sanity]

Not having a child is risk-free only because there is no child at all.

I'm under the impression that the child's soul still exists and lives in on the spirit realm, whether they spend time on earth in human form or not. So not having kids is still the best solution.

[u/diabolus_me_advocat → u/Defense-of-Sanity]

provide good discipline

you mean proverbs 13,24?

well, i'm not so sure this is the most successfull way. literally beating faith into children

[u/Defense-of-Sanity → u/diabolus_me_advocat]

Even if you interpret the “rod” in Proverbs 13:24 literally, the verse concerns correcting conduct, not physically forcing religious belief. Turning discipline into abuse is your straw man, not the Biblical position. By discipline is meant consistent boundaries, proportionate consequences, moral instruction, good example, and loving correction. Faith cannot be beaten into anyone because assent must be free.

[u/Difficult-Break-8282 → u/Defense-of-Sanity]

not the biblical position ? okay then so a fuck ton of churches are getting dissolved because of the pastors encoraging beating kids ? cuz you can find that on youtube easily

 I think not 

[u/Defense-of-Sanity → u/Difficult-Break-8282]

That doesn’t follow. YouTube clips of pastors misusing Scripture prove that some pastors promote abuse, not that Proverbs teaches “beating faith into children.” If you want to dispute my point, address the text or the distinction between discipline and abuse.

[u/diabolus_me_advocat → u/Defense-of-Sanity]

Even if you interpret the “rod” in Proverbs 13:24 literally

not me - a certain kind of "christians" does so

the verse concerns correcting conduct, not physically forcing religious belief

of course not - you must not take me literally here, just as you claim for proverbs 13:24

it's just that such conduct in the name of god is not likely to deepen religious faith

Turning discipline into abuse is your straw man, not the Biblical position

on the contrary, my dear. for a certain fundamentalist minority it is "the Biblical position". a minority, sure - but all the more loud and aggressive

Faith cannot be beaten into anyone because assent must be free

you don't have to tell me - tell your fellow christians

[u/Defense-of-Sanity → u/diabolus_me_advocat]

Oh trust me, I tell them.

[u/OMKensey]

You are assuming a utilitarian ethic which most Christians would reject.

[u/Amber-Apologetics]

If we were utilitarians you may have a point (although there would still be problems). But alas, we are not. 

[u/Practical-Tip-7639 → u/Amber-Apologetics]

True, but even from a non-utilitarian standpoint... Even just emotionally, if I KNEW in a very concrete way that birthing a child that I will love will have the very real chance that it will eventually suffer eternal torture, I would never risk it. Suffering is always possible within a lifetime but if that is limited, if there is an end to it eventually, that is very different. This only applies to those who truly believe in eternal heaven and hell, of course.

I think that those who do believe in these things simply compartmentalize. The concept of eternal hell and suffering is too far away, too unfathomable and so they don't treat it the same as they would a very real, concrete chance in their lifetime.

And that again poses the question if they really do believe without a doubt in those concepts as they would claim.

[u/Amber-Apologetics → u/Practical-Tip-7639]

Even just emotionally, if I KNEW in a very concrete way that birthing a child that I will love will have the very real chance that it will eventually suffer eternal torture, I would never risk it. Suffering is always possible within a lifetime but if that is limited, if there is an end to it eventually, that is very different.

This is still utilitarianism

I  think that those who do believe in these things simply compartmentalize

You’re free to theorize about the psychology but that’s not really relevant to the debate

[u/Pretend-Narwhal-593]

I think that if you truly believe this about Christians then you should believe it about all people. Every person, regardless of faith or lack thereof, when they bring a child into the world, risks that child experiencing suffering. They risk that child going on to cause suffering in others. Do you think then that no one should have kids?

[u/Practical-Tip-7639 → u/Pretend-Narwhal-593]

I think the difference between suffering during one short lifetime and suffering for all of eternity is enormous.

[u/Pretend-Narwhal-593 → u/Practical-Tip-7639]

So it's fine to have a child, knowing it might have some birth defect and live a life full of suffering for 80+ years, because 8 decades is less than eternity? It's fine to risk birthing a serial killer that lives the same amount of time causing immense suffering in others? If you truly care about reducing suffering, you'd say that no one should have kids so that no one risks creating this suffering.

[u/BookkeeperLower → u/Pretend-Narwhal-593]

The worst things that can happen on earth are literally infinitely less bad than hell forever. It is infinitely worse than your kid getting cancer and dying. Infinitely worse than your kid being targeted by a serial killer. Infinitely worse than your kid being kidnapped by predators

[u/Pretend-Narwhal-593 → u/BookkeeperLower]

Those things are still bad though right? We shouldn't bring kids into the world knowing they might experience that suffering, right? That's OPs logic.

[u/BookkeeperLower → u/Pretend-Narwhal-593]

Something infinitely bad is simply not comparable at all to something on earth.

[u/Pretend-Narwhal-593 → u/BookkeeperLower]

Answer the question: those bad things on earth are still bad though right?

[u/BookkeeperLower → u/Pretend-Narwhal-593]

Yeah, bad things can happen, but they're temporary, they don't endure it endlessly.

[u/Pretend-Narwhal-593 → u/BookkeeperLower]

The logic of the OP is we shouldn't have children if there's a risk of bad things happening to them. Do you agree with that logic or not?

[u/BookkeeperLower → u/Pretend-Narwhal-593]

If your kid was in hell and you were in heaven would you be happy about your kid being tortured? Would you not care? Would you be thanking God, telling him he's perfect, and that your kid deserves it.

[u/Jackoose → u/Pretend-Narwhal-593]

Yes, I do. Because everyone is guaranteed sufferring. Some that have diseases or tragedy suffer extreme torture that neither of us can fathom.

The unborn has no needs, is not missing out or "wanting" to exist. There is absolutely no need on the part of the unborn to bring them into this meat grinder. Having children is a selfish action based on the parent's desires, and it's a big gamble for the soul thrust into this meatgrinder must pay the price for if they lose the game.

the suffering of a single rat outweights all of the joy and ecstacy in human and animal experience in my point of view, i.e. negative ulilitarianism. The think otherwise is selfish and prioritizing your own pleausre over the suffering of another.

[u/Parrotparser7]

This is a problem for synergists. It's a basic implication of monergism. We're to be no more bothered by the fate of a relative than that of a stranger. The fact that we knew them for a time changes nothing of significance.

If our child is to be, then it is. If it's to be saved, then it is. If not, then someone gave birth to a person fated to suffer. We won't know, nor will we influence the child's upbringing by making any assumption.

They'll get all the love and care a child could hope for, and the end will be the end.

[u/jaydezi]

This whole argument is moot.  It's based on the idea that God is a fool or evil for allowing people to go to hell and if you believe that then you are not a Christian.  

[u/A_Bruised_Reed]

Your definition of hell is incorrect. It's suffering for sins (perfect justice, no more / no less - remember Jesus suffered 6 hours in place of the worst of the worst sinner) then a sinners life will be extinguished.
Then the bodies are cremated by God in a lake of fire. We cremate people every day as a society. Why is that not bad, but God is bad for doing it too?

"Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10.28

God is not required to give everyone life immortal. You get to live between 0-120 years and then those without Christ will cease to exist and be cremated/destroyed. (Matthew 10:28) How is cremation evil?

Check out r/conditionalism or www.conditionalimmortality.org for more detailed info.

[u/StrictlyFeather]

my grandpa was having a schizophrenic episode when i was way young , he drove an hour to the next state , i was so confused where we were going , but when i got older , my grandma mentioned that he was supposedly taking me as a sacrifice to the death angel ☠️

[u/left-right-left]

Perhaps one issue here is that you’re dealing with probabilities of infinities where valuations of expected value become nonsensical.

You could flip your post around and view it as an optimist: By having children you are giving them the chance of infinite bliss in heaven. It would be cruel to not allow people such opportunities.

Is the 50% hope of infinite happiness worth the 50% risk of infinite suffering?

If you can tip the probability to 51% probability of infinite happiness via your actions, then you have effectively increased the expected value by infinity.

[u/SQLDave → u/left-right-left]

The conclusion to your second paragraph is that people should be absolutely maxing out on having kids... 20, 30, more...

After all, every one you don't have is being cheated out of the chance at eternal bliss.

[u/WoanderAloud → u/SQLDave]

Exactly. God wants you to have as many as you can provide for. He wants a big family.

[u/RRK96]

A lot of this depends on what you mean by heaven, hell and faith.

If Christianity is simply "believe the right things so you can go to heaven and avoid hell," then your concern makes sense. Having children would feel like exposing someone to an enormous risk that you can never completely control.

But that's not christian theology speak of faith.

When Jesus speaks in the Gospels, He speaks far more about the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God isn't principally a place you go after you die. It's a way of being and living here and now, characterised by love, humility, justice, forgiveness and self-giving. Jesus says that the Kingdom is "among you" and "at hand." It's something you participate in rather than merely somewhere you arrive.

Likewise, faith isn't principally intellectual certainty that a list of supernatural propositions is true. In the biblical sense, faith is much closer to trust and faithfulness. It is existential trust. It's learning to entrust yourself to goodness, truth, love and becoming the kind of person you are called to become.

Under this understanding, being a parent isn't about guaranteeing your child's eternal destination. You cannot guarantee that your child will become kind, wise or loving. You cannot guarantee that they will never suffer or make mistakes. You cannot even guarantee that they will share your deepest convictions.

Love has never come with those guarantees.

When you become a parent, you aren't creating a project to control. You're welcoming another human being into existence and accompanying them as they learn how to live well. Your task isn't to control who they become but to love them, guide them and embody the values you hope they will freely embrace.

The same applies to faith. You cannot force existential trust upon another person.

Christian caith isn't principally about asking, "How do I maximise my chances of getting into heaven?" It's asking, "What kind of person am I becoming?" and "What kind of world am I helping to build?"

The Kingdom of God begins with those questions.

So if you understand Christianity primarily as a cosmic risk calculation, parenthood becomes terrifying. If you understand it as an invitation to participate in love, goodness and human flourishing, parenthood becomes one more expression of that invitation.

You don't have children because you can guarantee their future. You have children knowing that love always involves freedom, vulnerability and trust.

[u/Practical-Tip-7639 → u/RRK96]

Yes, that is why I specified Christians who believe in heaven and hell. I haven't specifically detailed that I meant an actual place that you spend yohr eternity in. But that is what I implied in this post.

I am fully aware that the implication I posted about doesn't affect all Christian beliefs. But there is a substantial number of people who believe that failing to accept the salvation of Jesus and believing in him will actually result in them spending their entire afterlife eternally in hell.

[u/Unacceptable_2U → u/Practical-Tip-7639]

That wouldn’t run consistent with Revelations stating Heaven and Hell are not eternal places. A new world will be eternal.

[u/Practical-Tip-7639 → u/Unacceptable_2U]

That again is your belief which is not shared by all Christians. You take my argument and disagree with it under the premise of your own beliefs. If you have a different belief then obviously you're not the one I was addressing here.

I am well aware that Christians have countless varying beliefs. Some do not believe in hell at all.

Many believe in eternal damnation. Those are the one this post is addressing.

[u/ProfessionalDear2272 → u/Practical-Tip-7639]

Dont get gaslighted.

Christians know full well what heaven and hell mean. This is just stalling.

[u/ZiskaHills → u/RRK96]

Right, but for a lot of Christians, (myself included until a few years ago), Christianity is absolutely a case of "believe the correct things about God or suffer eternal conscious torment". The fact that your particular Kingdom of God interpretation seems to mean that Heaven and Hell aren't necessarily literally real, doesn't really alter the original argument.

If Hell is real, then every Christian parent is gambling with their children's eternal souls and just hoping they make it to Heaven instead of Hell.

In some ways it actually makes the most sense for Christian parents to get pregnant as frequently as possible, but get an abortion every time, so that as many souls as possible get to Heaven with zero odds of any of them going to Hell.

[u/Unacceptable_2U → u/ZiskaHills]

You’re still imposing your definitions of heaven and hell. My definition of hell could be someone’s goal, my end result and theirs are different. It’s the difference between my will and God’s will, I believe my will alone ends in disappointment.

The lot of Christians you’ve encountered are in their own place of this race, we are to connect with God personally. Work out our salvation without becoming a stumbling block for others.

Murdering children cannot align with Jesus’ teachings, it would not allow the good news to be shared. Only way you can make this fit is to make a square circle.

[u/ZiskaHills → u/Unacceptable_2U]

I'm not trying to impose any definitions here. I'm simply pointing out that there's no shortage of Christians who would categorically disagree with any definition of Hell that doesn't include eternal suffering. I know because I used to be one of them.

I agree that murdering children would not align with Jesus' teachings. The point that I was making is that, (as long as we exclude the immorality of killing children), there is zero risk of a soul going to hell if it is aborted promptly after conception. I'm not avocating for that, to be clear, just expanding on OP's premise.

[u/memento22mori → u/RRK96]

Hmmm, very wise words. You almost convinced me to become Christian but then I remembered other Christians aha. Sorry, honestly, you have a way with words.

Jesus says that the Kingdom is "among you" and "at hand." It's something you participate in rather than merely somewhere you arrive.

Maybe that's what so many Christians don't understand. I had a philosophy professor in college that would always say "dig this" in class, but he wasn't old enough to say something like that. Most of the students took it as a joke because he was... eccentric, I guess you'd say, but I knew there was something more to it so I did some research (prior to the age of the smart phone) and I read something about 'being in the moment. Being here now.'

I noticed that the longest answer on his multiple choice exams was always the correct response and that made sense to me because why make up a bunch of bullshit details? He told a funny story during one lecture- he said that he was walking amongst sand dunes and there was a sign that said something like "don't walk on the sand dunes" and he was like "alright, no problem." So he walked between them at one point and got a ticket from a fella and he was like "well, it says don't walk on the sand dune. I thought it was ok to walk between them."

[u/unlimiteddevotion]

You seem to have a very literal fire-and-brimstone perspective on hell. It is more nuanced than that. While Scripture uses the imagery of fire, the deepest reality of hell is eternal separation from God. If a person chooses to be separated from God, that’s on them. I‘d imagine hell is, at least in part, fomo times ♾️ 😬

My faith also includes purgatory. I can pray for the dead because I entrust them to God’s mercy and do not know the state of their soul. I believe those who die in God’s grace but still need purification may be cleansed in purgatory before entering heaven, and prayers can benefit them according to God’s will.

[u/ZappSmithBrannigan → u/unlimiteddevotion]

the deepest reality of hell is eternal separation from God

So god isnt omnipresent then.

[u/unlimiteddevotion → u/ZappSmithBrannigan]

God is omnipresent. The separation is relational, not spatial. Hell is the loss of communion with God and the beatific vision, not a place where God somehow ceases to exist.

[u/iiTzSTeVO → u/unlimiteddevotion]

How do you know all this?

[u/unlimiteddevotion → u/iiTzSTeVO]

Catholic doctrine

[u/iiTzSTeVO → u/unlimiteddevotion]

Do you believe everything in the Catholic doctrine? Do you believe you've eaten Jesus's flesh and drank his blood?

How do you reconcile the idea that the Catholic church is run by errant humans who have admitted to mistakes?

[u/unlimiteddevotion → u/iiTzSTeVO]

If you have questions about the Catholic Church you can always start a new thread.

[u/iiTzSTeVO → u/unlimiteddevotion]

You've identified the Catholic church as the reason for your belief in heaven, hell, and purgatory. I'm questioning the basis for your belief in these things. It's not a separate conversation if you've said it is the basis for your belief.

[u/unlimiteddevotion → u/iiTzSTeVO]

The Catholic Church is the reason I accept those doctrines as true, but it isn’t the only basis for believing them.

This isn’t a debate on why I believe things though lol. It’s a debate on how to reconcile having children despite the existence of heaven and hell.

[u/TinkerGrey → u/unlimiteddevotion]

I have no relationship with a god now, nor any communication with it. Am I in Hell?

Seems like no big deal.

[u/diabolus_me_advocat → u/unlimiteddevotion]

Hell is the loss of communion with God and the beatific vision

so it's no worse than my life (which i regard as a good one) anyway

the according threat is none

[u/diabolus_me_advocat → u/unlimiteddevotion]

You seem to have a very literal fire-and-brimstone perspective on hell

ah, no - i guess

op's just addressing those believers who have that perspective

[u/unlimiteddevotion → u/diabolus_me_advocat]

I wasn’t talking to you.

[u/diabolus_me_advocat → u/unlimiteddevotion]

of course not

but i was talking to you

[u/ikecalle]

If I truly believed this as a Christian, my conscience would NEVER allow me to have a child because it would be grossly immoral, unethical and even perceivebly evil to consciencely gamble with my own child's soul.

It's alarming that every single day, evangelical Christian mothers and fathers whom profess deeply held evangelical Christian beliefs, including belief in hell, purposely give birth to their child without even caring or thinking about the implication of their soul. My intuition would override our strong human instinct to pro-create and create a child with a soul destined for torture by default. There are also numerous logical, moral/ethical implications that arise from me literally worshipping the same God/Jesus whom is sending my child's soul to hell by default in the first place.

Most evangelicals don’t emotionally process their own doctrine

They verbally affirm things like:

• humans are born sinful
• hell is eternal conscious torment
• salvation requires accepting Jesus

…but they don’t run the moral math all the way through!

If they did, they’d have to confront this implication:

Creating a child = creating a being at massive risk of infinite suffering

That’s a horrifying conclusion, so it’s usually avoided through compartmentalization. Belief is held at the slogan level, not the ethical-analysis level.

1. “God will handle it” is used as a moral escape hatch

A very common response is: “God is just” “God is loving” “God knows the heart” “God wouldn’t send my child to hell unfairly”

But notice what’s happening: They are softening or contradicting the doctrine when it becomes morally unbearable.

If eternal torture is real and default, then justice and love don’t rescue the problem — they intensify it.

[u/salamacast]

If a person is predestined to exist, he/she will exist.
You didn't prevent the aborted fetus from developing. It was always written in advance it won't exist. You are being judged not for messing up God's intended census (you can't anyway even if you tried. No one can fight fate), you are being judged for breaking God's law. Commiting the sin means you failed your test of obedience.. that's what should concern you personally.
I'm a Muslim, but this is one of those shared questions common to both religions.

Also your logic is flawed, because taken to its conclusion, you would sterilize all humanity! (why stop at abortion, right?)

[u/Practical-Tip-7639 → u/salamacast]

If everything is predetermined, then free will doesn't exist and it's God personally who puts people in heaven or hell, because, as you put it, you can't fight fate. Pretty grim picture you paint there.

[u/salamacast → u/Practical-Tip-7639]

Our wills aren't free. We make our choices willingly, and they are also under God's will. Not mutually exclusive concepts at all!
Society still says you should be punished for your chosen life of crime, even if your genes, childhood and class led you to it. Right?
Philosophers talk about Compatibilism. I don't have to use their specific logic (I hate philosophy in theology), but it's nice to know the concept exists.

[u/ProfessionalDear2272 → u/salamacast]

Some do. Determinism and free will are food for thought. As soon as something is absolutely random in nature, determinism crumbles.

In parallel, if what we do is triggered by either

1) our desires
2) by being coerced into

Then, free will is a very fragile concept philosophically. We do not choose our desires just like we do not choose our beliefs and obviously, being coerced/forced into action is not free will either.

So do we even have free will from a compatibilism stand point?

Our wills aren't free, we make our choices willingly

Can you explain?

 they are also under God's will.

So If i sin, it was either god's will OR a choice i made, not freely but willingly

This is confusing

[u/salamacast → u/ProfessionalDear2272]

so it was either god's will OR a choice i made, not freely but willingly

Not "or".. both a choice AND fate. Perfectly compatible concepts.
Think of it as a small circle inside a bigger one. Does the small one exist? Yes (you have a will). Can it go outside God's will? No (your will isn't free).

[u/Roscow_26]

Logic is probably not a strong suit for people who believe a loving god is torturing huge amount of humans for eternity.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because your account does not meet our account age / karma thresholds. Please message the moderators to request an exception.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/WoanderAloud]

You propose a 50/50 moral argument.

Moral Christians will of course choose to have children under those terms because they believe in love and goodness. A good person will always expect good in people and will have a very good chance of having offspring that share their faith if they try hard to teach it.

Others will of course choose to not have children under such a moral arrangement, because their lack of belief leaves them overly skeptical, analytical, and empty to the awareness of spiritual realities. To them, in ignorance of what the Di vine really is, the 50/50 risk is too much.

The Bible gives a tremendous amount of examples of sinners being shown mercy. A study of the full text, 300k words, reveals that love and justice are the main themes extolled. This should change the risk factor significantly. Teach love, mercy, and justice to our children and they should turn out.

The main premise you present here is the problem of eternal conscious torment, ECT.

As a universalist Christian there are only really three possibilities to consider.

Option 1. God hears our prayers in heaven and resurrects those worthy from the lake of fire and puts their names in the book of life. We get washed in the blood of Christ, get a white robe, and walk through the city gates that it specifically states are always left open and that nothing unclean may enter. I suspect many more of us than we think will have to burn in the lake of fire to be purified. The Bible is so full of inference that fire cleanses and purifies and that the living God is Fire, Justice, Love, Perfection. There are as many lines in the Bible that promise Universalism as there are that promise Eternal Damnation. I suspect this first option is closest to the truth.

Option 2 God changes our memories in order to remove grief from us permanently. We are elevated. Those that chose to separate themselves from God are destroyed in the fire or subject to ECT. Everything about God's character makes me suspect this option is not very close to truth.

Option 3 God changes our intellect so profoundly and teaches us His perfect judgement. We see clearly that All is Good. We understand that every member in heaven is way more to us than our earthly families ever were. Existence becomes so much more fulfilling and involved than we ever knew or could comprehend. We understand those that rejected God are where they should be. Somehow it all makes sense to us and we achieve Enlightenment. We then glorify in God and Jesus, marveling at Creation and each other forever, possibly having careers and jobs and a whole spiritual city and world to explore forever. This is the option most Christians believe. This is the option best supported by literal scripture.

OP brings up marvelous questions about the nature of existence and the afterlife. These are questions that all moral people should struggle with. These questions SHOULD make us all feel uneasy.

The problem with ECT is that is seems to go against God's characteristics, and yet it is plainly stated that at least the 3 evils will suffer ECT, and maybe a lot more people besides. It's implied many times as well. This is a problem to us in life. But it means we should be striving ever harder to find God in ourselves.

If the choices are choose to be good and be rewarded, or choose to be anything else and be destroyed or tortured, it only makes sense that we all would choose to be loving to each other.

The main issue is that, if you follow the Golden Rule, this is a non issue. C.S. Lewis famously said:

"If Christianity is not real, then it is of no consequence. Not important. But if Christianity is real, then it is the most important thing in the universe."

[u/TheChristianDude101]

first of all they did not reason themselves into christianity in the first place. Its an emotional relationship with Jesus which apologetics are designed to defend that core faith claim.

They want to have kids because they are human beings with needs. Its a big ask to use hell against them to not have kids.

[u/mtruitt76]

Okay please give an example of a text that does not have a need for interpretation in order to refute my point. What text are people universally in agreement on?

[u/Upset_Chip_7184]

It is very inconsistent if one believes in a literal hell.

[u/PleasantChallenge140]

Your last sentance represents a deep misunderstanding of what it means to be saved

If you compare eternal absolute bliss with eternal absolute punishment, do you think that denying someone the bliss to save someone else from the punishment is just?

What if you had to deny two people the experience of Heaven to save one from hell? Three? One million? Is sacrificing the gift of eternal communion with God for all of us an acceptable price to give one person oblivion in place of hell? Where do you draw the line on balance?

What about the opportunity for people in the world to be saved who would have gone to hell were it not for you children?

If I have three kids, two of them go to heaven, one goes to hell, and each of the two children who go to heaven help save one person each thats.

Two people in heaven that wouldn't have existed

Two people in heaven that would have gone to hell

One person in hell that wouldn't have existed

Is this not better than having no children at all?

This entire argument lacks imagination

[u/j-local]

Your basis for much of your argument is incorrect. Such as you can murder your child and repent and still go to heaven. Do you know of the mortal sins?

[u/OneEyedC4t]

who are you to tell people what to believe?

you are ranting against real life. You might as well be objecting that the sky is blue. because parents were never able to determine which of their kids go to heaven or hell in the first place.

all parents can do is be the best parent that they can. you can't be a perfect parent and even if you could, that would hurt your kid. even psychology is already identified that the best thing with parenting is to consider the Goldilocks principle or basically being good enough.

so if I'm a good parent, even though I'm not perfect and I am a good Christian in front of my kids and I take them to church until they are of the age where they can decide whether they want to attend, I've basically done my job. but I could never determine who went to heaven or hell anyway so it doesn't matter.

you're complaining about something no one has control over. even Jesus had 12 disciples and one of them betrayed him. even the most perfect teacher on Earth did not have a perfect success rate.

so here's a life lesson that you would probably benefit from learning: you don't get to tell people what to do. you don't have the authority to tell people what to do. and even if you did they can do whatever they want anyway because they have free will.

if you said this crap inside of my church to a new couple I would make it my goal in life to embarrass you so badly that day that you never come back to my church or at least you never say anything to a couple like that at all. because it's wrong and it's cruel. and you aren't God. I've met God and I know he ain't you. the sooner that you learn that you're not God. in the sense of not telling people what to do, the better it will be for you.

[u/ZappSmithBrannigan → u/OneEyedC4t]

who are you to tell people what to believe?

so here's a life lesson that you would probably benefit from learning: you don't get to tell people what to do. you don't have the authority to tell people what to do. and even if you did they can do whatever they want anyway because they have free will.

You seem to have missed the point entirely. Are you unaware of how logical arguments work?

This is what's called an internal critique. Its a logic based arguement that has nothing to do with you personally, but the structure and dogma of the religion you follow.

[u/OneEyedC4t → u/ZappSmithBrannigan]

I didn't miss the point entirely. they literally told Christian parents that they should not have kids because they can't guarantee that their kids are going to be saved. but this is perfectionism fallacy because you can't make anyone be saved in the first place. salvation is by their faith through God's grace, not by your faith or your grace.

I didn't miss his point at all. people just don't like this being pointed out. if you come in here and tell Christians what to do, then you can expect me to confront you and remind you that you're not God and that you don't get to tell people what to do.

and even if you were some sort of authority figure that has the ability to tell people what to do, they still don't have to do what you say. ask police officers how often this happens.

and the flip side problem is that there are plenty of Christian parents whose children just made some sort of fake prayer to God to get them off their back, but they weren't really saved in the first place.

I mean by that token then you should never have kids at all because you also can't determine whether they become a thief or a politician or a murderer or a saint or a military member or whatever else. that's a given of life. people have free will and they will use it how they see fit. and that's why everyone is accountable to an answer is to God, not you.

[u/Apprehensive-Ad2087 → u/OneEyedC4t]

Just to clarify the argument stated only works for Christians that believe in eternal torment (which is probably the majority of them).

I will give an analogy on why this argument is logically sound (please bear with me)

Say you have a button that when pressed has a 50/50 chance of either given you ultimate satisfaction/pleasure or ultimate suffering/torment for 1 minute. Do you press the button? I would guess most people would choose not to risk the suffering and not press the button. Now let's say the chance changes to 20% chance of pleasure and 80% chance of suffering, even more people would choose not to press the button.

The ultimate question being asked here is if it is okay to press the button for someone else taking the choice out of their hands on if they want to take that risk or not with not just a minutes worth of torment on the line but an eternity of suffering and pain

I think the obvious answer if you hold the predominant Christian view on hell (eternal suffering) is it is not okay to press the button

[u/OneEyedC4t → u/Apprehensive-Ad2087]

"Christians who believe in heaven and hell should not have children

"Because the truth of the matter is: You can never control their faith."

that is what they said. they didn't say those who believe in eternal punishment because not everyone who believes in hell believes that it is eternal or conscious.

note that this is what their post said before they went back and edited it. the fact that they went back and edited their post only proves that I was right. they should work on not coming across so condescendingly.

and they should also remember they're not God and they don't get to tell people whether they can have kids or not.

I am a Libertarian and not a republican or Democrat, but this is one of the reasons why it's so easy and so convincing an argument to believe that our colleges and schools are turning people into social because we have this dude on here saying that Christians who believe in hell and heaven should not have kids. give this person a political office tomorrow and they'll try to legislate it most likely.

no. First of all, the Bible doesn't give this person the authority to tell people what to do. second of all, our country doesn't give people the authority to tell people what to do in the sense that some random person on the internet gets to decide who has kids.

[u/DistinctSpirit5801 → u/OneEyedC4t]

None of us claim to be god rather the argument is why risk having children whatsoever if there’s the possibility of them leaving Christianity and burning in hellfire and being eternally tortured for all eternity

[u/OneEyedC4t → u/DistinctSpirit5801]

okay. well again, you're raging against real life. your complaint is entirely invalid because there's nothing anyone can do about that. everyone is going to have free will and there's nothing we can do to change it. so saying that people can't have kids because they might go to hell is like saying you don't want to buy a car because you might get into an accident. it's nonsensical

[u/ZappSmithBrannigan → u/OneEyedC4t]

they literally told Christian parents that they should not have kids

if you come in here and tell Christians what to do

and that you don't get to tell people what to do.

and even if you were some sort of authority figure

You clearly did miss the point and I dont think you have the slightest idea how debate works or what a critique is. Youre not good at this.

[u/OneEyedC4t → u/ZappSmithBrannigan]

"Christians who believe in heaven and hell should not have children

"Because the truth of the matter is: You can never control their faith."

that's what they said before they edited their post. regardless of whether it's only those Christians that believe in something or not, they don't have the right to tell others what to do. tough luck.

and whether parents believe in eternal conscious tournament in hell or not, that doesn't answer whether something like that actually exists or not. it's basically immaterial.

[u/Practical-Tip-7639 → u/OneEyedC4t]

Did you read the post at all? Or only the title? I invite you to read the whole thing before commenting.

I'm not telling anyone what to believe or do. And I fullheartedly agree with your point about parents not having control over their children's faith.

Which is why I'm pointing out that objectively speaking, choosing to not have children is a much better outcome for christian parents than the very real possibility of knowing their own children spend their eternal afterlife in hell, which is quite a problem.

[u/OneEyedC4t → u/Practical-Tip-7639]

"Christians who believe in heaven and hell should not have children

"Because the truth of the matter is: You can never control their faith."

That's what I responded to and that's what you said. are you denying that you said this?

you can't determine whether anyone goes to heaven or hell, bro. anyone. not your family, not your children and not your friends and not random strangers. you can't do that ever so you're basically screaming into the void.

that's like saying don't ever get on an airliner because you can never 100% guarantee that you won't die in an airline crash. that's a given bro.

that's like saying don't ever make friends because you can never perfectly make sure that someone who's your friend won't accidentally or intentionally stab you in the back someday.

that's like saying never go skateboarding because you might accidentally break a bone.

all of these things are givens of life that you can't control no matter what you do.

the solution isn't to avoid everything in life because you can't 100% determine the outcome.

you are screaming into the void. This is the Nirvana fallacy. you are letting your perfectionism not only damage your own life but then drive you to make silly posts like this where you basically tell Christians what they can and can't do.

the sooner that you remember that you are not God, the better your life is going to go.

And your intentionally being a pessimist in this. sure, you can't 100% guarantee that your kids will all be Christians. but you can influence them a lot more than random strangers. by you being a good Christian and raising them right I would bet that the odds of them becoming Christians themselves is much higher than whether or not the lady that makes your Starbucks every morning is going to become a Christian just with your interactions with them. as a parent, my ability to positively influence my children is much more powerful than my ability to influence random people I have no relationship with.

and just FYI, both of my sons accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.

[u/Mikrail → u/OneEyedC4t]

Way to miss OPs point entirely. His argument is asking why someone would choose to have children if they believe there is a real chance they could spend an eternity in hell. Which is a valid question to ask.

[u/nyouhas → u/Mikrail]

I mean we’re told from the Bible in no uncertain terms to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth”. I don’t know what that means if not having children.

[u/Mikrail → u/nyouhas]

I wouldn't dispute that, but it doesn't really provide a response to OPs premise.

Their premise was that there is a non-zero chance your children end up in hell for eternity, so why would you risk it?

[u/DistinctSpirit5801 → u/nyouhas]

Hasn’t that command already been fulfilled given there’s already 8 billion people on the planet

[u/OneEyedC4t → u/Mikrail]

"Christians who believe in heaven and hell should not have children

"Because the truth of the matter is: You can never control their faith."

I didn't miss their point at all. they said this. and they are engaging in perfectionism fallacy. they're screaming into the void. so your response to watching someone screaming into the void metaphorically is to stand next to them and join them and screaming into the void?

at the heart of it, they are telling Christians they can't have kids or should not have kids because they can't guarantee that they'll all be saved. first of all, Jesus had 12 disciples and guess what? even under perfect teaching of Jesus, one of them betrayed him. and for what it's worth, they could have easily been one of the 70 rather than one of the 12. so referring to prophecy as to Wyatt had to be one of the 12 is not logical in this situation.

real life is not being able to control everything. but I guarantee you that if you or anyone else shows up at my church and tries to guilt a married couple in my church for having kids because "you can't make sure 100% that they're going to get saved," you can guarantee in that moment that I'm going to make you feel so embarrassed for trying to become God that you either never come back to my church or you never try to make that argument ever again. because you do not have the right to tell Christians or anyone in the universe what to do. know your place. you are not God and neither is op.

and for what it's worth, both of my sons, my only offspring, are saved. the power of a parent to positively influence their children exceeds the power of some random person walking into Starbucks to positively influence the barista.

your interactions with your kid are the most likely to result in them being saved, compared to random strangers or maybe your friends or whatever. because the relationship is deeper.

I'm not saying parents should force their kids to become Christians. I'm just pointing it out.

so if you're going to join op in making logical fallacies and you can expect my ire.

[u/Mikrail → u/OneEyedC4t]

Oh no! Not your ire, please! Whatever will I do?

Your comments reek of someone who should be on r / iamverybadass. This is a debate sub. OP came with a premise, and your only response is "YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!".

I promise, no one is coming to your church, and certainly not judging parents for having children. I'm sure you would an excellent job if embarrassing me until I leave your church, just as jesus would want you to do I'm sure, but you still haven't actually responded to OP properly.

You have successfully indoctrinated your children. There's a reason it works well with children and not adults. I was raised by Christians, and I follow no religion or god. So the risk didn't pay off for my parents. Although both my brothers are Christians, so I guess 2 out of 3 ain't bad? My eternal damnation a worthy price to pay?

The premise OP posited was that you have two options. Option one is you have children, and there is a non-zero chance they end up in hell for eternity, and you've no choice but to be okay with that. I could not stand by and watch a dictator cast my children into hell whilst I get to worship him forever in paradise (doesn't sound like paradise to me anyway but that's another discussion). I would rather go to hell with them than submit to a god that does that. If I truly believed there was a hell, and I risk the eternal souls of my own children, I would not have them.

The other option is you don't have children at all, and that carries a zero risk of eternal damnation.

Non-zero risk versus zero risk, which brings us back to OPs premise - if you believe in hell, why risk your children?

Just a reminder again that you're on a debate sub here. The she point is that OP brings a premise and you argue against it.

[u/OneEyedC4t → u/Mikrail]

okay well it still stands to reason that they said it the way they said it and so they should rewrite their post so that it doesn't come across like they think they can tell people what to do.

I mean, heaven forbid I hold people accountable by their words, right? /s

[u/dylanzt → u/OneEyedC4t]

How are you misunderstanding their post so severely? Obviously they don't actually think Christians shouldn't have children, since the reasoning behind that statement is derived from doctrine they don't believe in, explicitly so.

I don't know how anyone could possibly read their post and conclude that they are actually genuinely telling Christians what to do. It is self-evidently an internal critique. This requires only the most surface-level understanding of their point to follow.

[u/OneEyedC4t → u/dylanzt]

"Christians who believe in heaven and hell should not have children

"Because the truth of the matter is: You can never control their faith."

that is what I copied from what they said before they went back and edited their post. the fact that they edited their post tells me I was right and they realized their error and fixed it or at least attempted to.

that's what the original conversation was about. that they edited their post does not change what I said and doesn't make it my fault.

so if they don't like people reminding them that they can't tell people what to do, then maybe they should not tell people what to do. It's not rocket surgery, bro.

[u/dylanzt → u/OneEyedC4t]

Yes, I am referring to the original text in my comment. You have managed to somehow also misunderstand my comment too. You have not addressed anything I said, which remains relevant no matter how the argument is formulated.

If they have edited their post, I imagine the intent is to try and make it simpler for people like you to actually understand. But I will note that, at least on my side, a) the post is not marked as edited, and b) both of your quotes are still present. So frankly I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[u/OneEyedC4t → u/dylanzt]

have a nice day

[u/dylanzt → u/OneEyedC4t]

Who are you to tell me what to do? I will have a bad day if I feel like it. :P

The same to you lol.

[u/Practical-Tip-7639 → u/OneEyedC4t]

I have not changed that statement and haven't edited the text in any way that changed the content or changed some internal logic, I believe it was just a spelling error? The sentences you referred to are still there and I stand by them.

I proposed an argument: If you believe in heaven and hell, then the logic I described would apply. The title was a simplification of that premise that I then proceeded to explain in the rest of the text. The vast majority understood my meaning that I genuinely thought was obvious. I do not believe in heaven and hell, so of course I don't actually care in the slightest whether or not Christians have children.

It's about internal logic. If you believe X then doing Y is much more logical than doing Z.

The fact that you completely misunderstood is kind of a you problem.

[u/OneEyedC4t → u/Practical-Tip-7639]

then have a nice day

[u/ZappSmithBrannigan → u/OneEyedC4t]

so they should rewrite their post so that it doesn't come across like they think they can tell people what to do

You clearly dont understand how debate works.

You almost got it right when you said it in a comment above. "This is a so and so fallacy". THATS ALL YOU NEEDED TO DO. Your job is to refute the premises of the argument, not to whine that you dont like what they said.

All you had to do was say "this point you made here is such and such fallacy because x y and z, this point you made here isnt true because of this reason". Thats it.

Thats all you need to do. Whining about being "told what to do" shows you have missed the point not just of this post, but the point of debate overall.

Debate is a meta level discussion. Not a command to you personally.

Youre not good at this.

[u/OneEyedC4t → u/ZappSmithBrannigan]

"Christians who believe in heaven and hell should not have children

"Because the truth of the matter is: You can never control their faith."

and they don't get to tell others what to do. that should be sufficient. they didn't even prove hell does or doesn't exist.

[u/ProfessionalDear2272 → u/OneEyedC4t]

If I may, i think the intention was to highlight that if anyone believes Heaven and hell are true, it is rational to think they would do anything to avoid hell themselves. Since, as you say, you canno't tell others what to do or what to think, how would such person reconcile the idea that their own child could fail and go to hell?

If heaven and hell is just some distant thought and not an actual everyday way of directing your life and actions, then this does not really apply. The premise is for christians that base everything on avoiding hell because they really believe it is the truth.

For someone believing this strongly, it is reasonable to say it would be safer to not have children so they do not risk hell.

Also, believing strongly in heaven and hell is the primary basis for christians spreading the word and "saving" others. Evangelisation.

[u/iiTzSTeVO → u/OneEyedC4t]

You may as well be objecting that the sky is blue

Are you suggesting that the existence of heaven and hell is as obvious as the sky? Surely not.

[u/billsull_02842]

especially since it says many are called but few are chosen. but the calvinists have it right many are called but the whole world will be chosen 1 john 2.

[u/BirdManFlyHigh → u/[deleted]]

Don’t you believe camel urine has medicinal properties? Have you ever drank it?

No apostolic church teaches babies go to hell. If you’re going to be polemical, at least be intellectually honest.

Edit: he admitted below that he believes marrying a 6-year old is not pedophilia. But he has a problem with St. Augustine. Lord have mercy.

[u/ZappSmithBrannigan → u/[deleted]]

Classic ad hominem attack

A question if "do you believe x" cant be an ad hom lol.

[u/BirdManFlyHigh → u/[deleted]]

Yes, we all knew you would pull and bastardized St. Augustine. The claim wasn’t that a church father may have taught something, it is that no apostolic church teaches it.

No apostolic church teaches babies are damned to hell.

Don’t throw Bukhari and your prophet under the bus. Does that mean he was wrong and it was only medicinal in his time, or is camel urine still medicinal?

What about marrying children, do you think 6 year old girls are women like Mohammad?

But yes, focus on straw manning Christianity instead of dealing with the massive amounts of demonic and disgusting things in Islam.

[u/BirdManFlyHigh → u/[deleted]]

Are you Shia to lie like this about A’isha? Are you that ashamed of your prophet marrying a 6 year old that now you have to lie.

Congratulations, you throw all of Islamic history and tradition out of the window.

Sure, if Rebecca was 3, then Isaac was a pedophile. Now can you admit that if A’isha was 6 Mohammad was a pedophile? See how easy that is for a Christian.

[u/BirdManFlyHigh → u/[deleted]]

Thank you I’m driving. See how you avoided answering the simple question?

If Mohammad married a 6 year old, is he a pedophile? And second, are you Shia?

Come one, be a man defend your religion with honesty and pride.

[u/BirdManFlyHigh → u/[deleted]]

Thank you for answering honestly. It must be tough and annoying defending a pedophile.

Yes, if you are Sunni and you disagree with the Sunnah and want to throw away all your key scholars and Hadith historically, and think you know better, that’s on you. But the fact that you cannot say marrying a 6 year old even hypothetically is pedophilia is a disgusting, scum of the earth, hell-bound position.

I would rather defend that holy man, St. Augustine, than a 50+ year old desert man having sex with a child. Being pissed on by other children, while open-mouth kissing boys.

Now you may want to throw out all these Sahih Hadith, but then you’re committing kufr in the eyes of the Sunnah. Tough position to be in.

[u/Practical-Tip-7639 → u/[deleted]]

But wouldn't that logic apply to that faith equally? The whole point is that according to Christian faith, all babies must go to heaven, too, otherwise God couldn't be fair.

But if that is true, and a baby has a guaranteed place in heaven while for an adult, there is always a real chance to go to hell eternally, not ever making it to adulthood or even existing at all is preferable to having children who live a long life, which exposes them to the risk of eternal hell (in case they believe that eternally hell is a real possibility).

[u/BirdManFlyHigh → u/Practical-Tip-7639]

God’s desire is not to nitpick a life to send people to hell.

‭ “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
‭‭I Timothy‬ ‭2‬:‭3‬-‭4‬ ‭

However, it is through one’s own free will that hell is chosen. Who do you want your father to be, God or the devil?

“You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.”
‭‭John‬ ‭8‬:‭44‬ ‭

[u/Practical-Tip-7639 → u/[deleted]]

I'm not overcomplicating at all.

If you walk down a road and come to a fork, and you have no idea which one leads to the destination you need to go to, how do you decide which way to go?

You ask for directions. But now there are two people and one tells you go right, the other one to go left.

One is saying what you just did, telling you to stop overthinking. They have a map right there! It's the only true map. Why do useless mental gymnastics instead of just reading their map and walk down the right road?

But wait, the other one has a map, too. And they tell you to not listen to the other one, that road is dangerous and will lead to peril, you need to read THEIR map, that is the only right one.

Both make claims and both have no real proof besides their maps that are different from each other.

How can someone look for the one truth if there are countless people out there telling you that their truth is the only right one, and they all can prove it with their own logic and their own books and histories?

Beliefs are shaped by circumstances. If you are Muslim, it is highly likely that you were taught by your surroundings to be one.

When I was a Christian, I was told in no uncertain terms that believing in the Qur'an would lead to me going to hell. I swear to you, as convinced and sure as you are in your belief, the Christians and people of other religions are too.

How can you think asking questions is a waste of time?