Why would God create a soul he knows will go to Hell?
#41
Iuvenalis Wrote:So, I'm just saying, if God knows what a soul (with free will) will do, he could just not bring said soul into being. It's not the same as forcing you to do something it is only making those he knows will persevere finally.


How about this ...


When God creates a soul He knows in advance (as it were) whether that soul will go to Heaven or Hell.  In this sense, we are all predestined.

However, once created, these souls do not simply glide straight to their final destination in a kind of bubble, unaffected by any external circumstances & influences.  How a soul reacts to external circumstances & influences determines where it will end up.  And the most important of these circumstances & influences are its interactions with other souls in this life.

Given this, one can envisage a situation in which God creates Soul A (which is hellbound) because He also knows in advance that its interaction with Soul B will be the catalyst that enables Soul B to get to Heaven.  For example, an individual might be so horrified at another's evil acts that he is moved to amend his own life and so escapes Hell himself.

Thus Soul A's damnation is the price of Soul B's salvation.  Is this price worth paying?  We would have to say yes because we know God is good & just and we are in no position to pass moral judgement on God.


What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction, that he might shew the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he hath prepared unto glory? - Romans 9:22, 23
Reply
#42
(02-18-2010, 12:13 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-16-2010, 08:48 PM)Melkite Wrote: Why couldn't God just allow them to return to non-existence?  If you're so hung up on the free will aspect, what free choice were we given to either exist or not?  Isn't it kind of unjust to be sent to hell for not playing by the rules when we were never given a choice if we wanted to be set in the atmosphere of those rules to begin with?

God creates, not destroys.  Even destruction on Earth, such as the flood, isn't destruction per se - i.e., sent into non-existence.  To do that would be to go against His nature.

God has a "contract" of sorts with nature in that when the biological function of sperm meets egg occurs properly He implants a soul.  To not implant a soul purposefully would be to interfere with the free will of our parents to engage in a pro-creative act by intentionally making it not pro-creative.  So, blame them for copulating. 

The next question as to why He doesn't make a soul and ask it if it wants to be incarnate goes back to the first one - what does He do with a soul that doesn't want to go?  Well, He won't make it non-existent (see above).  So, it could go to a waiting room, but then He's creating souls outside of the contract.  Also, the Church condemned the notion of the pre-existence of souls.  You also have the problem that the soul doesn't have the experience to decide using informed reason if it should go or not.

So why did God make this contract?  Well, IMO, because we're created in His image so we have a Creator-nature about us where we partake in the creation of humans - we give the biology, He gives the soul.

As for not wanting to play by these rules, that's akin to saying, "I didn't ask to be born" which is pretty much what Job said.  So, it seems to me more answers can be found in the Book of Job.

Sounds good but I think you're starting off from a flawed belief. Your argument is based on the fact that God cannot destroy a soul (as this goes against His nature) however, to my understanding, animals have finite souls.
Reply
#43
(02-18-2010, 12:13 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: God has a "contract" of sorts with nature in that when the biological function of sperm meets egg occurs properly He implants a soul.  To not implant a soul purposefully would be to interfere with the free will of our parents to engage in a pro-creative act by intentionally making it not pro-creative.  So, blame them for copulating. 

There is no (neither natureal nor revealed) proof that the immortal soul is created at the time of Conception.

The Second divine Person
1./ Became united with the flesh (when Mary conceived fron the Holy Spirit)
2./ Became human being (having also immortal human soul)
3./ Get crucified etc.

descéndit de cælis  et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto ex María Vírgine et homo factus est crucifíxus étiam pro nobis sub Póntio Piláto
(before arguing otherwise please consider that there was no punctuation in the 4th Century AD)

There is no proof that step #1 and #2 happened on the same time

The description of the creation of man is clear that first the body was formed, then the immortal soul was breated into the existing body

The fact that 2 of every 3 fertilized egg is aborted w/o the knowledge of the mother suggest the probability that they get no immortal soul, it would be not reasonable.

This does not mean that the abortion is accepted, virtually even the egg has the capability to get immortal soul (so the contraception preventing the fertilization and thus becoming human being is serious sin) 
Reply
#44
(02-21-2010, 09:47 AM)glgas Wrote: There is no (neither natureal nor revealed) proof that the immortal soul is created at the time of Conception

If that is true, then why is abortion a sin?
Reply
#45
Quote:Well, IMO, because we're created in His image so we have a Creator-nature about us where we partake in the creation of humans - we give the biology, He gives the soul.

I totally dig that.  That's very "Eastern" sounding!  :)  (I know, I know....I'll shut it with the Eastern stuff  :laughing: at least while on Fisheaters!) :P
Reply
#46
(02-18-2010, 12:13 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: The next question as to why He doesn't make a soul and ask it if it wants to be incarnate goes back to the first one - what does He do with a soul that doesn't want to go?  Well, He won't make it non-existent (see above).  So, it could go to a waiting room, but then He's creating souls outside of the contract.  Also, the Church condemned the notion of the pre-existence of souls.  You also have the problem that the soul doesn't have the experience to decide using informed reason if it should go or not.

The pre-existence of souls was condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople along with broader "Origenism," but I am unclear whether it applies to only the Platonic notion of the soul as eternally pre-existent and essentially uncreated, or to all pre-existence; that is, the soul could not have been created at a prior time and infused in the womb (as is found in Jewish oral teaching).
Reply
#47
(02-22-2010, 12:42 AM)Cyriacus Wrote:
(02-18-2010, 12:13 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: The next question as to why He doesn't make a soul and ask it if it wants to be incarnate goes back to the first one - what does He do with a soul that doesn't want to go?  Well, He won't make it non-existent (see above).  So, it could go to a waiting room, but then He's creating souls outside of the contract.  Also, the Church condemned the notion of the pre-existence of souls.  You also have the problem that the soul doesn't have the experience to decide using informed reason if it should go or not.

The pre-existence of souls was condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople along with broader "Origenism," but I am unclear whether it applies to only the Platonic notion of the soul as eternally pre-existent and essentially uncreated, or to all pre-existence; that is, the soul could not have been created at a prior time and infused in the womb (as is found in Jewish oral teaching).

Could you expand? Clarify? ???
Reply
#48
(02-19-2010, 03:10 AM)Iuvenalis Wrote: Simmer down… an answer like what you gave (upon re-read) misses my point.  So, I'm just saying, if God knows what a soul (with free will) will do, he could just not bring said soul into being.

Right.

Iuvenalis wrote: “It's not the same as forcing you to do something it is only making those he knows will persevere finally. It is different.

Right.  You make it sound like getting damned is the worst thing that could happen and a good God should be in the business of only allowing good things to happen. 

But getting damned is not the worst thing that can happen.  Getting damned is only the worst thing that can happen to the one who is damned.  Judas’s damnable betrayal of Jesus was the means whereby Jesus opened the gates of heaven to all those in the bosom of Abraham and all of mankind thereafter.  That is, good is derived from the bad of the damned.

Not only does God get good fruit to blossom from the limbs of the damned, but the fact of the damn’s damnation is in and of itself a good.  God Who is love, is constitutionally incapable of anything but love.  Ergo, damnation rather than annihilation is the best most loving thing to do ALL THINGS CONSIDERED.  It’s only the worst thing, in my considered opinion, when you do not consider the other things (e.g., justice and heroic virtues sparked by demonic vices) other than the damned.

Iuvenalis wrote: “Yes, less or no souls in Hell would be preferable. God says so.”

No He doesn’t.  God says he does not wish the destruction of the wicked, only their repentance.  That’s not the same as saying He doesn’t want the unrepentant to go to hell.

Iuvenalis wrote: “Apparently it is a numbers game, as I am under the impression God created us to know him and love him in this life and the next. God, in his triune perfection, nonetheless, wanted our love. Love cannot be given to one's self, thus he created us. So, it is a numbers game, as one (God) was apparently a 'lonely' number.”

You are wrong on so many counts here, I don’t know where to begin.  Suffice it to say that if, as you say, God relied on creation to love Him because He could not love himself, well, He’d be no God.  By definition, God is without needs. 

When the Baltimore Catechism (that you seem to be referring to and which was written for children) expresses theological percepts by ascribing needs or wants or motives to God, it is a kind of baby talk, not meant to be taken literally. 

Iuvenalis wrote: “Aesthetic value" derived from eternally tormented souls?! You're sick man.”

“Eternally tormented souls” is your emotionally laden phrase which inaccurately describes damnation.  To the degree we do not have the imagination to conceive of a timeless state, which is what eternity is, damnation seems to be the construct of a sadist and vengeful god. 

So once we scratch “eternally” from your “eternally tormented souls,” what’s left is “tormented souls.”  Still sounds bad until you recognize that those souls are tormented exactly to the degree that they continue to chose damnation.  Hell, like heaven, is a dynamic state of being, operative to the degree that it is continuously chosen. 

To illustrate.  Let’s say the damnable offence is that of a young boy tearing the wings off a fly.  Justice demands that God swat the offender’s butt.  This is aesthetically more appealing than the unjust alternative, that the little brat get away with his cruelty.  So visualize hell as a collection of little boys hell bent on torturing flies who are in turn being tortured for their intransigent ways. – Cheers, Albert Cipriani
Reply
#49
I know it has been a while since this thread has been active, but I didn't have a chance to respond when the thread was active, so hopefully I am not doing a serious wrong in bringing this up again.

My answer to this question is contingent upon two premises:

1) God is all-just.

2) Justice isn’t partial. It is not justice to grant only a reward or grant only a punishment. Justice is in rewarding the good and punishing the bad. Without one of these actions, there can be no actual justice.

Let us consider, for example, what would have happened had God created only those beings which would have chosen good and gone to heaven (reward only). This would mean that God would not have created Lucifer because Lucifer chose evil instead of good. Since hell was created specifically as a punishment for Lucifer (as well as his angels), had God not created Lucifer (or any being who would reject God), there would be no hell. If hell did not exist, then there would be no punishment for sin. If there were no punishment for sin, there would be no consequences for disobeying God. If there were no consequences for disobeying God, then (there are three answers):

1) there would be no true justice. And if there were no true justice, then God would not be all-just. If God were not all-just, then God wouldn’t be God.
2) God would have to reward both the good and the bad. Were God to do this, it would not be just.
3) those who God created would not be capable of rejecting God because if God knew they were going to reject Him they wouldn’t have been created. If this were so, then every being created by God would not truly be able to reject Him because their existence would be contingent upon a decision already-made (if they are in existence, then they can’t reject Him). This eliminates any true free will – the power to reject God at any moment – for those currently in existence. If this were so, then there would be no actual choice to serve God at all; all those created would be predestined to go to heaven by some act of their free will that allows them to exist.

In short, in order for justice to exist, the good must be rewarded and the evil punished. If there is no punishment for the bad, then there can be no just reward for the good for there can be no alternative to goodness. If there is no alternative to goodness, then goodness doesn't deserve a reward.
Reply
#50
When I watch the Hubble Deep Space Field video on YouTube where they found 3000 galaxies in tiny fragment of otherwise black space and figure that if God exists He made all that just for a laugh, then my honest answer is "How the heck would any of us know why?"

Whatever, made all that stuff is God and I am willing to just do whatever I am told as best I can as miserable little creature on this rocky iron plant.  His power is beyond awesome it is mind-bendingly poop-droppingly piss-in-my-pants runnily Wow!

It certainly appears from Fatima that there is a Hell, so now we just need to avoid it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)