For those of you that do follow a religion that has a belief of a horrible afterlife or after-existence with eternal torment such as "hell" (or hades, perdition, tartarus depending on whichever version of belief that you follow) what do you think of what is said in the following articles?:
"Believers in Hell should not procreate, and should embrace antinatalism" and "Antinatalism as a challenge against Christianity."
Does it makes sense to not procreate altogether and run the risk of setting someone else up for endless and perpetual pain and suffering? If one believed in such a place actually even exist? I wonder, how does one justify those risks? Especially if they believed in such a place to begin with. If so, then what exactly make those risks necessary?
Since I cannot copy and paste the text if the entire articles into here, I've made screen captures of it, click it to read it.
I've yet to find one person here that holds BOTH religious views and antinatalism beliefs and views. But maybe I might be wrong.
There's no such "command" or "commandment" that demands and requires or makes procreation mandatory if I remembered correctly. Such a statement as "Be fruitful and multiply" was never a "commandment". Nowhere was such a statement ever on any of those "10 Commandments", not in any revision or version of it whatsoever.
So once again, if you believe Hell is for real, and if you don't have any children yet but want some, but then how come and why would you want to bring and add new people into existence? Just so they might end up in a "Hell" after they die? You OK with that?
Updates
+1 y
Seems like the picture doesn't link right. Try and see if this would fix it:
They don't really justify the risks. There's no need to. Humans are instinct first, rationality 10th. The primary purpose of the frontal lobe is to simply rationalize baser instincts from the amygdala [Dr. Steven Novella]. The purpose of the evolved part of the brain is simply to make the less evolved part happy.
Reproducing makes the lower brain happy. So, people would potentially rationalize it--come up with excuses or defenses that are only meant to justify reproduction; but, having children is most often just an unintended consequence of sex, anyway.
Even with my stringent opposition to reproduction, I've felt that flood of neurochemicals which fundamentally *change who you are*. Mixing that with an already established belief that one *should* reproduce, well, shit's gonna happen.
The impetus to "be fruitful and multiply" is easy to accept, because it ties in with the lower brain's desire, making it easily routed through the more critical frontal lobe.
Simply put, it doesn't have to be logical. Virtually nothing about humans is logical. It's all about feeling. In the same way people don't vote on issues--they vote on who they like more.
Further, there is biological gain to be had from reproducing. So the aspect of "protecting" the offspring isn't really going to be a big priority. People had kids even when 3 out of 5 or whatever were likely to die from scarlet fever.
Especially when it concerns Christians. They're already masters of self-delusion and circular reasoning. In one ear and out the other.
Interesting correlation, though. I never even thought about that one.
It would have made much more sense for those that believed in the possibility of a terrible place that they preached and embrace antinatalism instead, because that would have guaranteed "salvation" and "saved" much more people from that terrible place they believed in compared to adding more and new people into the world.
Just look at the second paragraph from the rationalwiki article:
"In response to this extreme doctrine, many good hell-fearing people naturally conclude that their moral imperative is to save as many souls as possible, and accordingly, they try to evangelize and convert unbelievers to their own religion. However, these people are mistaken about their priorities, because the effectiveness of religious evangelism pales in comparison to a much more important moral imperative that stems from believing in Hell, one that religious people seem curiously eager to ignore: abstaining from procreation, and embracing antinatalism."
They spend so much time and effort in trying to convert others to believe the same religion and system of beliefs as they do, when clearly, that the only guaranteed way they could "save" more from going to that horrible place they believed in is by spreading anti-natalism and strongly encouraging others to abstain from procreation altogether.
Nor is it ever about consistency or having any sort of consistency, but if it was ever revised and updated into a new version or new revision that is consistent, specifically for those kinds and types of religions that insisted that such a horrible place exist and that a person can end up in beyond death, it would get rid of the whole "be fruitful and multiply" and start preaching anti-natalism wholesomely altogether and insist that if a believer or follower of it's system of beliefs want to guarantee a person to never ever have to end up in such a place, then just simply don't ever bother to conceive and create them at all in the first place, and there would be no need or point to ever try an convert others that disagree and don't believe in the same way.
Seems feasible, except that 1 of the major premises are faulty: 「If one is a Christian, believes in the existence of Hell, and that one cannot be guaranteed of not going to Hell (for even if one believes in Jesus today and believes that this is all one needs to go to Heaven, one can never be guaranteed that he will steadfast in that belief for the rest of his life ), then it seems that the probability of any given new human life going to Hell is more than trivial.」
There are some sects that believe that salvation can be revoked. Others, like the major Baptists denomination, believe that it is permanent, 1-time, life-long. Calvinists even believe salvation is predetermined and those elect will not apostate. Lutherans believe the can, but are still saved from Hell.
We haven't even discussed the soteriologies of the non-Western denominations, like the Coptic, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, etc…
How far does that salvation go? What if someone was so fucked up they figured, oh I'm gonna be forgiven eventually anyway for as long as believe in this Jesus figure and have "faith", therefore that means it won't matter how much harm, suffering, damage, destruction or death I'd otherwise would cause, because as long as I have "faith" in this Jesus, then this Jesus is gonna save my ass eventually either way and give me a "get out of hell free" card. Want to explain that to me? I'm sure some people are like that and they cause harm and damage and believe solely because they believe in "forgiveness" and "salvation", regardless of what they do or did while they are still alive.
I'm not שופט גדול ("Shophat Gadol"; the「Great Judge」) who knows all, but I'd tend toward the Calvinist approach for a clearly-abusive person of questionable sincerity and question the person's salvation in the 1st place, since sincere of God should means sincere desire to do the right thing and obey His מצוות ("mitzvot"; 「commandments」), per John 14:15. If someone was sincere at the beginning, I would apply the Lutheran.
The thing is that only the all-knowing שופט גדול can definitively certify a person's salvation, while we limited humans can only speculate based on observed, known information on a given another's personal life.
So, I would hesitate with individual cases and general criteria seem safer: Believers emphasizing free-will over predestination and revocable salvation seem most at risk, while those on the opposite side of the spectrum (pre-set, irrevocable salvation) have less risk, given divine mandate to procreate and since authority requires responsibility.
many people, myself included, are religious and believe most people, even those who aren't our own religion, are going to heaven. so we dont feel guilty procreating. please do not lump all christians together into a group that thinks all "sinners" are hell bound. it is an outdated assumption.
I didn't say that it was all those that are Christian, rather let me re-phrase the question this way: "If somebody strongly believes that Hell is for real and exists or is true, then why put somebody else new into existence and put them at risk of ending up there for all eternity, and how and why would this ever be justified in any way at all? Wouldn't that even be worse and greater risk than everything else? Knowing that whomever one has created would have to suffer eternal damnation? Wouldn't that even be worse and greater risk above everything else if one has such beliefs?
And also, what kind guarantee or control does one actually have over whether their own offspring would not end up in such a terrible place that they believed in, when clearly on cannot control what and how another person thinks, feels, believes, acts, etc?
Here's another video that presents the case debate argument more clearly:
i can't control if i have a horrible car accident and yet drive a car daily. we cannot control anything really. i think you need to accept this lack of control to be happy on any level. while this is life advice, it is also an element of faith.
I don't believe in hell. However, I guess that a religious person would disagree with this article. They usually want to have kids and they believe in heaven. So, this article wouldn't make sense to them.
472 opinions shared on Religion & Spirituality topic.
I haven't spent the time to read all of this, but people should not stop procreating just because of the fact (or at least my belief) that the vast majority of people who ever lived, are alive, or who will EVER live, will be going to the Lake Of Fire. Everyone HAS the opportunity to spend eternity in Heaven if they simply believe on the Name of Jesus and become Born Again, etc. This nation should have been judged DECADES ago, but God has been giving us so much more time, so that His Word can be spread throughout the World, and those who are unknowing can come to KNOW the Lord.
@mrkdvsn Let me try and re-phrase that question in a clearer way:
"If somebody strongly believes that Hell is for real and exists or is true, then why put somebody else new into existence and put them at risk of ending up there for all eternity, and how and why would this ever be justified in any way at all? Wouldn't that even be worse and greater risk than everything else? Knowing that whomever one has created would have to suffer eternal damnation? Wouldn't that even be worse and greater risk above everything else if one has such beliefs?
And also, what kind guarantee or control does one actually have over whether their own offspring would not end up in such a terrible place that they believed in, when it's clearthat one cannot control what and how another person which includes their own (child[ren]) thinks, feels, believes, acts, etc. in the very first place?"
Just watch this video and see the case debate yourself:
I watched most of the video and I can see where he's coming from. BUT, God's wish is for us to be FRUITFUL and MULTIPLY. Any child which is not conceived will never know the potential joy of Heaven. We go to Hell by our own choosing, by not doing the simple things that God requires of us to GET to Heaven. And TRUE Christian Pastors ARE trying to get the Gospel out to the whole world.
"Any child which is not conceived will never know the potential joy of Heaven." Not a surprise that is their explanation or excuse use as a justification despite it's never a guarantee, because how much control does one have over the actions, beliefs, choices, decisions, thoughts that one child is going to make then? And if they didn't and if we went by the belief systems then that person is condemned to such a place all because their existence occurred, that they had been brought into existence. It's just like how it's never an absolute guarantee that a person brought into this world would turn out to be fine and not suffer a horrible fate or turn into some monster and cause unspeakable horror and evil onto others, all just because they might have a chance of a good and enjoyable life?
Just for the record, that "fruitful and multiply" statement was never a command in any revision of those religious texts, so that doesn't mean it is something that is absolute and mandatory.
After watching only part of the above video, it reminded me of something a particular Pastor said about Hell. It seemed to him that the only way that Heaven dwellers would be able to cope with any and all loved-ones NOT making it into Heaven, but rather, going to Hell instead, would be if God completely removed them from the memories of those Heaven-dwellers. Otherwise, those Heaven-dwellers would be eternally grieved forever.
What's your real question, though? What can't you reconcile exactly? If you want to talk about Hell, I'll insist on going off of what the Bible says about Hell (very little,) not what some dude imagined about it.
I think first I should say that I truly believe we are living in the End Times, that this is the last or second to last generation, and I believe that gives us certain considerations regarding the old directive to "be fruitful and multiply."
My point was whether the case argument makes even more sense or not? It's this topic of "If Hell is for real and exists and somebody believes that to be true, then why put somebody else new into existence and put them at risk of ending up there for all eternity, and how and why would this ever be justified in any way at all?" Wouldn't that even be worse and greater risk than everything else?
I see this reality and existence as bad enough even if there isn't a hell that I find it unjustified, a complete gamble, playing russian roulette with somebody else's future, outcome and well-being, but I guess those that choose to bring new people into existence had never considered, realized or had any second thoughts about how little control they actually have over what can and will happen in reality, and have never considered all possible outcomes, including the horrible and bad ones.
Too many versions have too many contradictory statements regarding this that it's so inconsistent, you might as well explain it. In general they say those that have done horrible and unspeakable evil, horror, damage, suffering and harm upon others are condemned to such a place. Others say more than just that. It was just the inconsistencies I realized they had pointed out. It would have made much more sense to save additional persons from ever ending up in such a place by choosing to never create them at all from the very beginning, that would be a guarantee that they can never possibly end up there. But I do notice that almost all religions preach pro-natalist and pro-natalism ideologies and try to "convert" others to follow their system of beliefs.
Hell is first mentioned in the Bible, and it's very sparsely mentioned at all.
Everything else about Hell is fanfiction written many centuries later by people who were using it as a literary plot device, or else trying to invent their own new religion.
So for me, the Bible, the original source, is the only source worth taking seriously.
My understanding is that Hell is a place of torment designed for demons and fallen angels, not for humans. Humans can only go there voluntarily by consorting with demons.
"Why make babies, if by doing so you’re going to populate Hell? What if the government let you have children under the condition that they could be seized at random for seriously unethical medical experimentation? Would you still want to have children under those conditions? Hell would be much worse than random medical experimentation. The main difference is that you won’t see Hell while you’re alive. But does that mean it’s any less real? If you believe that Hell is real, wouldn’t your time be better spent trying to save the people who are already here than in making new residents of Hell? If you went to Heaven, wouldn’t you be happier knowing that you saved people from Hell than you would be knowing that your children and numerous grandchildren are burning in endless agony forever? So, if you believe in Hell, doesn’t it make sense to become an anti-natalist?"
The thing is god is all knowing, therefore, god already knows who is going to heaven and who is going to hell. It's all predetermined. I don't think the argument is going to sway those whose faith is rock solid because they will believe that god will direct their life to heaven.
Then what is the whole point of good and bad/evil if it all of it was predetermined? Then that means that there really was no "free will" and that everything is according to "fate", pre-scripted. It's like saying that there's a director that says okay this one gets to be a good guy, I like him, I've decided he gets to be the good guy and he gets to win. The other guy however, I don't like him at all, he gets to be the bad guy, so I already made sure he will lose to the good guy I favor and picked, because to me, this is my good guy and I want him to win, so only he gets to win.
You know what the funny thing is? They say free will is the justification and indication of good and bad/evil, as in why suffering and pain is allowed, because of allowing free will. And if pain and suffering was stopped and prevented each and every single time it would otherwise occur, then free will then be would be impossible. I remember reading that somewhere, but forgot the original sources for them.
As for whether it's going to sway or should sway those who has rock solid faith, that isn't the goal or objective. My point was whether the case argument makes even more sense or not? It's this topic of "If Hell is for real and exists, then why put somebody else new into existence and put them at risk of ending up there for all eternity, and how and why would this ever be justified in any way at all?" For the first article, the 3rd, 4th, and last 3 paragraphs in particularly.
you could see your will as free, except that in this case they have the added constraint of the omniscient God. If God already knows which choices you will make in addition to knowing the possible choices, is it still free? I don't think so, since what you choose is already set in stone before you choose it. I consider it their argument against Epicurus. atheistfallacies.files.wordpress.com/.../...72.jpg
Technically, none of us are exactly "free" since none of us had willingly signed up and volunteered to come into this world in the very first place, and ultimately we'll all expire. For both situations we have absolutely no control over and can't change, thus we're not exactly "free". In between life and death, there is miseries, perpetual maintenance requirements in order to "live" and "survive", and all of those things don't exactly come "free" either.
I still view life as being imposed, but new life doesn't need to be created and is unjustified, but if somebody insist and if that's what they really want to go through, then expect consequences to come from it, and one should be willing to accept all possible outcomes and realities of what would eventually happen to whomever they decide to bring into existence and add into this world.
I believe this is an essay, and doesn't come from the Bible. I also think that the statement is contradictory to the Bible, which is that believers wouldn't end up in hell. So, if the essay author is stating she believes in God, then I'd discourage anyone from following this. The Bible states that "those who believe in Me, shall have Everlasting Life".
"those who believe in Me, shall have Everlasting Life". That's where I find things questionable, what if someone decided to abuse this "faith" thing whether it's faith in this Jesus figure or some other figure or character in religious text and expect it to be a "get of jail (hell) free" card and decided that maybe it don't and won't really matter how much harm, suffering, pain, damage, death and destruction they caused here in this life and world, all because there's somebody there that's gonna bail them out in the end all simply for them to merely just have "faith" and believe in Jesus or God or whichever figure or deity? I mean I'm sure there are those in death row that had converted to a "faith". Do they deserve to be forgiven? How exactly does this whole forgiveness thing even work? Even when somebody has inflicted and done considerable harm and damage? And yet they are "forgiven" and given "salvation"? How is that fair? How is that even just?
God knows what's in people's hearts, what their true intentions are. Only God can answer whether we each deserve eternal life or eternal condemnation. I don't truly know if I will be bailed out, but I figure that I deserve what I get either way. I figure I will (attempt to) live a Christ-like life, like God asks me to. Unfortunately, some people won't be bailed out, because deep down they are really horrible and sad people. Only God can answer whether a specific individual person deserves to be forgiven. We don't know everything, but God does. How do we know if maybe a person was justified for doing what they did? I'm not saying rape or molestation or torture is necessarily justifiable. I'm just saying we don't know everything, including a person's past or family history.
The way I see it, regardless of whether there is one or there isn't one, we are merely, completely and utterly expendable. Totally and completely acceptable losses and acceptable sacrifices, since we're all guaranteed and allowed to suffer over and over again, allowed to die over and over again. The latter is moreso because we choose and decide to keep perpetuating and adding new life into this world. We have no more importance than the importance that exist in our heads. To me, this whole salvation thing is nothing more than a false sense of entitlement, but also for many it's a coping mechanism, so there is something to "hope" for. Otherwise, learn to live with despair that there is no "rescue" or "salvation".
This sense of entitlement would make it worse if one thinks or believes that for as long as they believe in and have "faith" in this Jesus figure or whomever, then they'll get a "get out of jail free" card eventually and not really have to worry about what they do or not do.
I personally would prefer to be more optimistic in faith than to be pessimistic in death. And entitlement? Following God's path is an entitlement? If anything, it makes a WHOLE lot of sense. Not being selfish, not killing people, not being jealous, not being angry, being happy, being kind, give your neighbor a hand...
It still doesn't change reality, people continue to suffer and die again and again. But if having something to hope for and believe in is much more important and is important to someone then I see why. I just don't believe in any sort of rescue or salvation, we're here and that wasn't our decision and choice in the first place, and eventually we'll all expire and that also isn't a choice either. I feel bad enough about this world that I wouldn't subject anyone else new into it through me. That's the closest thing to "saving" somebody by never allowing them to come here at all in the first place; never conceiving them.
I just think they make an even stronger case argument with what is said if one believes there's even more suffering and pain and miseries following death. And it's something I rarely ever seen or heard being discussed about.
In the first link, there are even more articles about the same topic of "if Hell is for real and exist then why put somebody else new at risk of ending up there for all eternity, and how and why would this ever be justified in any way at all?":
Just because some people continue to suffer and die again and again, doesn't mean it isn't justified. How do you know for complete certain that those that have suffered and died lived life without fault or lived life to perfection? They may have said and believed that they didn't deserve it, but that doesn't mean it wasn't/was merited. How do you know for certain that it wasn't our decision to be here? "... and eventually we'll all expire and that also isn't a choice either" - Um, have you heard of suicide? I don't suggest you do it, but that is a choice people have.
"If Hell is for real and exists, then why put somebody else new at risk of ending up there for all eternity, and how and why would this ever be justified in any way at all?" Because the Reward is so much greater than the risk. The more we help others see the Light, the better off we'll ALL be.
Those that believe the rewards would exceed the risks typically would have that optimism bias. But good luck with it, if they get lucky and nothing went wrong, sure. But they may not be as emotionally prepared for it should they ever be so unlucky and loses their own child, especially in a horrible horrible way to something horrible. And there's also that other situation where their own child might turn out to be something horrible too and caused great harm, suffering, pain, death and destruction to other. The reality is that we all have very little control what CAN happen and whatever WILL happen. It's still taking chances and a gamble so from my own perspective it still isn't justified, the risk is NOT a need. The rewards are NOT a need, but rather a WANT. I find the risks for some rewards to be completely unnecessary. If somebody is already here and exists, they can't escape and avoid all risks entirely, that's different.
Even if you don't believe in one, my point was look at what was written in those articles. Click either the links or the pictures at the bottom under "Updates".
718 opinions shared on Religion & Spirituality topic.
Hell is people! I don't believe in the afterlife so heaven or hell are meaningless to me beyond funny additions to storylines of books, movies, games or tv shows.
I meant what they said in the article, does it make more sense to not procreate at all for someone that believes in an existence of a hell? Check the update and click on the picture. Or go to the links.
And what if their kids turned out to not follow and believe in the same religion as they do? Do they not recognize and realize that they cannot control what others do, think, feel, believe, act, etc? You can even ask them what if the end up raising a homosexual, and not all religions are completely against it, but some are. And are they okay with that? Because they sure seemed to when they decide to take chances and gamble away and create and new life and throw it into this world and not realizing that they cannot ever possibly control whatever the outcome may be for themselves and that new person they had created.
Even if you don't believe in one, my point was look at what was written in those articles. Click either the links or the pictures at the bottom under "Updates".
@ThisDudeHere@Unit1 My point was whether the case argument presented by those articles :https://rationalwiki. org/wiki/Essay:Believers_in_Hell_should_not_procreate,_and_should_embrace_antinatalism
It's this topic question of ""If somebody strongly believes that Hell is for real and exists or is true, then why put somebody else new into existence and put them at risk of ending up there for all eternity, and how and why would this ever be justified in any way at all? Wouldn't that even be worse and greater risk than everything else? Knowing that whomever one has created would have to suffer eternal damnation? Wouldn't that even be worse and greater risk above everything else if one has such beliefs?
Their reasoning for bringing people into this world despite hell ''existing'' is much the same as it is for the majority of people - a chance at life outweighs suffering within said life. Or ''afterwards'', in this case. The world is crap, sure, but I'm still going to want to bring a child into it and raise it right, so that it can face the world better and suffer a bit less than it would have otherwise.
Their argument is that if such people hold such beliefs wouldn't it then be inconsistent of them to insist on adding new and more people into the world, or had done so, just so they might end up in such a place eventually that they believed in? More commonly and it appears that most religions are pro-natalist, and preach that and many of them preach this concept of a terrible after-existence, and yet they spend so much time trying to convert others in to their own religious beliefs, when they could have "saved" more people from ever ending up in that place they believed in by revising things towards the direction of anti-natalism or that one really shouldn't reproduce if one is overly concerned with that belief. The articles argued about their inconsistencies.
"In response to this extreme doctrine, many good hell-fearing people naturally conclude that their moral imperative is to save as many souls as possible, and accordingly, they try to evangelize and convert unbelievers to their own religion. However, these people are mistaken about their priorities, because the effectiveness of religious evangelism pales in comparison to a much more important moral imperative that stems from believing in Hell, one that religious people seem curiously eager to ignore: abstaining from procreation, and embracing antinatalism."
Exercise is hard. It at times hurts your body. Would it not then be inconsistent to continue on doing it, despite the hardship? The answer is that the results (greater health) outweigh the costs (pain).
Passing on your genes is hard and can hurt both you (if you're a woman) and the child (from life overall). Is it inconsistent then to want to procreate despite the hardships? The answer is that the results (progeny and someone who takes care of your when you're older) outweigh the costs (a bit of suffering here or there, but nowadays considerably less of it in comparison to what you or your ancestors went through)
What they talked about would go beyond merely just hardships. Hardships one can manage, tolerate and overcome, they speak of a place of eternal damnation constantly.
As for "someone who takes care of your when you're older" I know that's never an absolute certainty and guarantee and is automatically a gamble. You can't be certain you'll outlive them, can't be certain how they'll turn on, it's the lack of any control over what the outcome and reality will be. They might still be around, but they may not be there for you while you're old, sick, dying, etc. Why place so much hope and run the risk of even greater disappointments and miseries for one self? I guess you're in the camp of those that are afraid of having nobody to look after them when they become old, sick and dying and would rather risk adding a new life into this world.
In those cases, I would rather adopt or make a deal with somebody that is already here and in existence, instead of bringing someone new here, due to the lack of consent possibility issue. I find it unfair to place someone new at risk, compared to just being able to make a deal and communicate with someone that is already in existence here this world and therefore it would be possible to get their consent instead. But then again we don't know how much time we all have, we may not live as long into our old, elderly years, post-retirement. I don't know if you ever considered that or not, that we may not actually live that long.
"You can't be certain you'll outlive them" Can't be certain whether the children will survive for more than a year. That was the case for every parent centuries ago, yet they tried.
I get what you're saying about this thing in general - that it seems inconsistent that believes in eternal damnation don't practice abstinence from children. All I can say is that there is no such thing as a wholesale consistent person. Or belief/ideology for that matter.
Even their own drive to procreate outweighs their beliefs. I mean, ''technically'' it is hipocritical but I also think that it's a moot point to point that out - it serves no purpose because of how self-evident it is. Sky is blue and all.
"I get what you're saying about this thing in general - that it seems inconsistent that believes in eternal damnation don't practice abstinence from children."
I have no "drive to procreate", and I'm sure not everyone has it either. To be frank, I really don't even like the way how I'm created in the first place once I had realized the truth learning it from biology as my parents always avoided the whole topic of how I came into existence each time I asked them. The DNA results of 2 people, that's it? No wonder it's terrible and limited with this whole genetic system thing.
I rather had been engineered, assembled, built, constructed, and activated into existence instead (NOT CREATED by humans, and probably never on Earth to begin with) like some sentient and independent intelligent and alien machine that can be constantly updated and upgraded again and again perpetually. And if I were to create new kind of "life" they'd be created in the same manner, (built, assembled, etc.) without the limitations and all of the problems that come with a genetics system and biological reproduction, especially when it comes to creating new sentient beings.
Which is why I wouldn't "procreate" because it goes against my beliefs. Especially not with the way how we're created and brought into existence in the first place.
@Schrodingerscat I really should have re-phrased the question from a different perspective. It really should have been asked this way instead: "If somebody strongly believes that Hell is for real and exists or is true, then why put somebody else new into existence and put them at risk of ending up there for all eternity, and how and why would this ever be justified in any way at all? Wouldn't that even be worse and greater risk than everything else? Knowing that whomever one has created would have to suffer eternal damnation?
Wouldn't it have made more sense to simply never had any children at all if one so strongly believes in such a horrible place of eternal torment?"
My point was whether the case argument presented by those articles and essays made even more sense or not?
@Schrodingerscat? It's really about what was presented as a case argument by those articles. Would it not be inconsistent if one holds such beliefs and yet insist that more and new people should be added into the world, just so they might end up in such a place eventually that they believed in?
I haven't gone through the docs you posted and I don't have enough knowledge of Christianity to answer it, and I am not even religious.
But I'll try to explain from religious person's POV. Maybe they feel that they'll raise their kid good enough so that he/she won't end up on hell. Besides, more kids would mean more followers of a religion, right?
If you don't want to read that article try listening to what is said in this video, it's about 10 minutes, but it's actually shorter since near the end some random person sings a song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_N4en6iEKc
"Besides, more kids would mean more followers of a religion, right?"
Not necessarily all of the time. Some times they'll end up converting to and following a different religion or system of beliefs different than that of their own parents some day. Or they might turn away and abandon it and decide that it isn't for them at all. The child and new person one create, ultimately is their own entity. Their parents cannot control what they feel, think, believe, act, decisions and choices that they make, etc. Too many parents just do not realize and recognize that. Yes, they can try and do their best to influence them as much as possible and hope that they continue stay on the course and path they lead their children, but that's about it.
The argument really is if hell really was for real, how is it justify to add new people here into this world so they'll end up there forever? You cannot possibly control the outcome of what your own offspring's actions, beliefs, thoughts, etc. will be? Thus why make such a big gamble and risk someone else's existence altogether? When you can't protect them forever or even at all to begin with.
Let me try to re-phrase the topic question this way:
"If somebody strongly believes that Hell is for real and exists or is true, then why put somebody else new into existence which would then absolutely put them at risk of ending up in such a place for all eternity?
And how and why would this ever be justified in any way at all?
Wouldn't that even be worse and greater risk than everything else?
Knowing that whomever one has created would have to suffer eternal damnation?
Wouldn't that even be worse and greater risk above everything else if one has such beliefs?"
The argument presented in the essays and articles are pointing out the inconsistencies of those that believe in eternal damnation and yet don't abstain from procreating altogether.
I really should have re-phrased the question from a different perspective. It really should have been asked this way instead: "If somebody strongly believes that Hell is for real and exists or is true, then why put somebody else new into existence and put them at risk of ending up there for all eternity, and how and why would this ever be justified in any way at all? Wouldn't that even be worse and greater risk than everything else? Knowing that whomever one has created would have to suffer eternal damnation?
Wouldn't it have made more sense to simply never had any children at all if one so strongly believes in such a horrible place of eternal torment?"
My point was whether the case argument presented by those articles and essays made even more sense or not? Not telling whether others should or should not have kids, that's on others to decide since it's their life anyway.
As for outnumbering, I wouldn't know about that. Why is that of concern?
Never heard of that person before. I think their case argument made much more sense, that if anyone hold such beliefs, then wouldn't it be inconsistent if they decided to place any further new people at an even greater risk? If one holds such beliefs, and yet are pro-natalist then that would be inconsistent.
You never bothered to answer my other questions by the way.
And besides one can't control what one's offspring choose to do and believe or not do and not believe in. What if they decided to not believe in the same religion as you did? Then does those arguments from those articles make sense?
Home > Religion & Spirituality > Questions > If you believe that Hell exists and is real, then what do you think of what is said in these articles says about it and procreation?
Most Helpful Opinions