Why would God create a soul he knows will go to Hell?
#91
(02-22-2011, 12:37 PM)Malleus Haereticorum Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 07:57 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: He cannot choose but to know. He is God Almighty, omnipotent, all knowing and seeing, omnisicient and omnipresent. It is the very Nature of the Godhead. That you would find this disputable is just strange...im sorry. Give me an example how God could CHOOSE not to know something?

Thats merely your opinion - so if you are commited to it - get to proving it.,
Not my opinion but the Churchs


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm Divine knowledge-Catholic encyclopedia

Description of the Divine Knowledge
That God is omniscient or possesses the most perfect knowledge of all things, follows from His infinite perfection. In the first place He knows and comprehends Himself fully and adequately, and in the next place He knows all created objects and comprehends their finite and contingent mode of being. Hence He knows them individually or singularly in their finite multiplicity, knows everything possible as well as actual; knows what is bad as well as what is good. Everything, in a word, which to our finite minds signifies perfection and completeness of knowledge may be predicated of Divine omniscience, and it is further to be observed that it is on Himself alone that God depends for His knowledge[/color]. To make Him in any way dependent on creatures for knowledge of created objects would destroy His infinite perfection and supremacy. Hence it is in His eternal, unchangeable, comprehensive knowledge of Himself or of His own infinite being that God knows creatures and their acts, whether there is question of what is actual or merely possible. Indeed, Divine knowledge itself is really identical with Divine essence, as are all the attributes and acts of God; but according to our finite modes of thought we feel the need of conceiving them distinctly and of representing the Divine essence as the medium or mirror in which the Divine intellect sees all truth. Moreover, although the act of Divine knowledge is infinitely simple in itself, we feel the need of further distinctions — not as regards the knowledge in itself, but as regards the multiplicity of finite objects which it embraces. Hence the universally recognized distinction between the knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) and that of simple intelligence (simplicis intelligentiae), and the famous controversy regarding the scientia media. We shall briefly explain this distinction and the chief difficulties involved in this controversy.

Distinctions in the Divine Knowledge

In classifying the objects of Divine omniscience the most obvious and fundamental distinction is between things that actually exist at any time, and those that are merely possible. And it is in reference to these two classes of objects that the distinction is made between knowledge "of vision" and "of simple intelligence"; the former referring to things actual, and the latter to the merely possible. This distinction might appear at first sight to be absolutely comprehensive and adequate to the purpose for which we introduce distinctions at all, but some difficulty is felt once the question is raised of God's knowledge of the acts of creatures endowed with free will. That God knows infallibly and from eternity what, for example, a certain man, in the exercise of free will, will do or actually does in any given circumstances, and what he might or would actually have done in different circumstances is beyond doubt — being a corollary from the eternal actuality of Divine knowledge. So to speak, God has not to wait on the contingent and temporal event of the man's free choice to know what the latter's action will be; He knows it from eternity. But the difficulty is: how, from our finite point of view, to interpret and explain the mysterious manner of God's knowledge of such events without at the same time sacrificing the free will of the creature.

. Whichever way we turn we are bound ultimately to encounter a mystery, and, when there is a question of choosing between a theory which refers the mystery to God Himself and one which only saves the truth of human freedom by making free-will itself a mystery, most theologians naturally prefer the former alternative.
Reply
#92
Free will. WE can’t know why God does what he does. If you ask that, then you might as well ask why God even created man since he knew that we would sin.  :) Besides, every body deserves a chance. And God loves us all, no matter what.
Reply
#93
Because God created everyone equal....hey maybe he does NOT know who will go to Hell and it is just up to us to decide based on that "free will" he gave us. :)
Reply
#94
(02-25-2011, 10:55 PM)Pomprincess Wrote: Because God created everyone equal....hey maybe he does NOT know who will go to Hell and it is just up to us to decide based on that "free will" he gave us. :)

He's omniscient.  He knows.
Reply
#95
(02-25-2011, 11:24 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-25-2011, 10:55 PM)Pomprincess Wrote: Because God created everyone equal....hey maybe he does NOT know who will go to Hell and it is just up to us to decide based on that "free will" he gave us. :)

He's omniscient.  He knows.

The term "omniscient" is too limited to describe what's going on.  God infallibly knows that each of us is going to choose either Heaven or Hell, and His complete knowledge includes the consequences of both choices.

What is yet to be chosen by each of is, indeed, very much yet to be chosen; even from God's point of view.

Otherwise -- that is to say, if God's omniscience worked according to the laws of the categories of logic -- then His omniscience would preclude the possibility of an authentic freedom in the creatures He made in His own image.  And that would imply that such creatures are not authentically free, and as such, cannot really love their Creator.

I find that problematic to say the least.
Reply
#96
(02-25-2011, 11:45 PM)Incarnatur Wrote:
(02-25-2011, 11:24 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-25-2011, 10:55 PM)Pomprincess Wrote: Because God created everyone equal....hey maybe he does NOT know who will go to Hell and it is just up to us to decide based on that "free will" he gave us. :)

He's omniscient.  He knows.

The term "omniscient" is too limited to describe what's going on.  God infallibly knows that each of us is going to choose either Heaven or Hell, and His complete knowledge includes the consequences of both choices.

What is yet to be chosen by each of is, indeed, very much yet to be chosen; even from God's point of view.

Otherwise -- that is to say, if God's omniscience worked according to the laws of the categories of logic -- then His omniscience would preclude the possibility of an authentic freedom in the creatures He made in His own image.  And that would imply that such creatures are not authentically free, and as such, cannot really love their Creator.

I find that problematic to say the least.

Although I already provided a few justice-related thoughts on the matter, I found a different approach to the question that expounds upon the point of your post while perusing an apologetic work popular in the 1940s. Fathers Rumble and Carty provide a very insightful commentary on this question, which is found in the Second Volume of Radio Replies, P.170:

Q.708 Wrote:If God knows a soul is to be damned, it is useless for that soul to try to attain salvation.

There is no predestination for damnation. Nor is it futile for an individual to endeavor to save his soul. God says even to the worst sinners, “Repent, and if your sins be as scarlet, they shall be made as snow” (Isaiah I., 18). If a man is lost, it will be solely through his own fault. God may know that certain souls will choose to damn themselves, but He knows they have not got to do so, nor does His knowledge make them do so. Knowledge [of an event] doesn’t cause an event; the event causes knowledge [of the event]. Because Jack is running I know that he is running. But he certainly isn’t running because I know it. God knows that a man will choose to lose his soul only because that man will so choose. There is no need for him to choose so disastrously. He receives sufficient grace for his conversion. Let him correspond with the voice of God and of conscience, repenting of his sins, and he will be saved. It is not futile for him to endeavor to save his soul, and if he is lost it will be precisely because he did not endeavor to do so. Just imagine a farmer who says: God knows whether I’m going to have a crop or not. If He knows, I’ll have it, whatever I do. If He knows that I won’t have it, I won’t have it, whatever I do. So I won’t plough, I won’t sow any seed, it’s futile. Such a man is working on the absurd idea that knowledge causes the event instead of realizing that the event causes knowledge of it. Let us all do our best in the service of God, the practice of extra virtue, the avoiding of sin, and the desire of holiness. If we do, the practical result will be our salvation. The solution of the speculative problems can safely be left to God.

I would only like to comment on a technical aspect of the word choice “event”. By “event”, Fathers Rumble and Carty do not necessarily restrict its meaning to an event bound within the parameters of linear time; they are referring to the effect of a cause, a relationship which isn’t necessarily confined to the limitations of linear time. For man, the execution of free will, though it is a power existing outside of time, is necessarily manifested in time. For God, however, the execution of this power is not limited to the confines of time, for God is not subject to a symbiotic relationship of body and soul.

In short, this means that the execution of the power of free will is made outside of time, though, for man, this execution is manifested in time. But it is not as if God is sitting on a some throne outside of time looking at these manifestations of our free will in time and then deciding whether or not to create us in the first place based on these soon-to-be manifestations of which we have no knowledge. God does not have knowledge of our choices because He sees that we will one day choose them. Though there are certain biological processes taking place in the medium of time that usually affect what we will choose, these time-restricted processes are not how God knows what we will choose. The actual execution of the supernatural power of free will outside of time is how God knows what we have chosen; these choices but await manifestation in time so that we know what we have chosen.

It is important for us to experience these manifestations of our free will because, without time as a medium, we could not learn from our mistakes, repent, do penance for the sins of our past, or see the effects of our choices in life. But without factoring in time as a necessary condition of free will, we struggle to understand exactly how this cause-effect relationship works, for we have never known anything but that which is limited to the parameters of the dimensional box by which our minds are temporally restricted. To us, even while acknowledging the existence of an incomprehensibly minute micro-interval of time, the cause must come before the effect in time. Without the dimension of time as a factor, we are left with the imagination of a purely static reality in which a cause precipitates an effect without the former happening before the latter on a linear timescale. In this time-absent reality, the same choice is always being made and still being made by a power existing outside of time. This is a mind-boggling metaphysical reality, but it is a reality that must be acknowledged when considering why God would create a soul He knows would “choose” hell. The question then becomes: When does the soul really choose hell?
Reply
#97
I think its similar to the idea that if a person says to a psychologist...DOC I think Im crazy..well then that person is most likely NOT. A person bound for hell (which is all of us at conception except Mary) does not their whole lifetime enter into that inner dialog needed for repentance and salvation, they leave their "choices" on the table, or their talent buried in the sand, or they excuse themselves from the wedding feast, or they show up not caring to dress properly. Consider the fig tree Christ condemned because it had no fruit. Those that end up in hell are those who leave their free will unused.....at least thats the way I look at it....and I most likely am wrong...but hey.
Reply
#98
(02-26-2011, 11:55 AM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: I think its similar to the idea that if a person says to a psychologist...DOC I think Im crazy..well then that person is most likely NOT. A person bound for hell (which is all of us at conception except Mary) does not their whole lifetime enter into that inner dialog needed for repentance and salvation, they leave their "choices" on the table, or their talent buried in the sand, or they excuse themselves from the wedding feast, or they show up not caring to dress properly. Consider the fig tree Christ condemned because it had no fruit. Those that end up in hell are those who leave their free will unused.....at least thats the way I look at it....and I most likely am wrong...but hey.

I'll just say this in response.  Original sin bounds no one to Hell.  Unrepented actual mortal sin is the only thing that can get anyone damned.  But without Baptism, apparently, no one can go to Heaven.  But not going to Heaven does not necessarily imply going only to Hell.  I think there are plenty of people who died before Christ who have not been damned.

You might be right about how people actually end up going to Hell, though.  One's eternal destination does seem like something that strongly hinges on one's whole life (at least in some fashion it does).
Reply
#99
um it is hell if you die unbaptised. Otherwise whats the point of the Cross?
Reply
(02-27-2011, 12:56 AM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: um it is hell if you die unbaptised. Otherwise whats the point of the Cross?

Well, it depends on how you define "hell". If by "hell" you mean the absence of being in God's presence, yes, unbaptized infants go to hell, because Limbo is technically the outer-most region of hell. But this doesn't mean that they are punished, that they suffer, or that they lack perfect natural happiness.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)