Q #1 - Why have children ?

[RZehr]

Perhaps help answer Q #1 - Why have children?, it is necessary to first ask Q #0 - Why did God create man?.

First, I think it is a common understanding that Christians would hold, that God created mankind to bring honor to God, or to worship God. And I don't know that that is incorrect. But is that all? Are we simply a "vanity project" for God? Doesn't that seem maybe a bit empty? A bit hollow?
God doesn't have needs does He? God isn't insecure. God doesn't seem like a God that just needs some little people for His entertainment, or for a hobby. God has the Angels that worship Him, is our free will distinction really, in terms of magnitude, that critical of a difference? Is this all that our role is?

We know that there has been a cosmic, spiritual war that has been taking place for thousands of years. Maybe we are playing some part in that war. Maybe Christians are on Gods side in this war in a consequential way - a way that transcends earth. Maybe how we live effects this war, effects the angels. Maybe the whole OT/Gods people, and NT/Gentiles, change plays a role in this war that is unknown to us. Ephesians 3 sort of hints at this. Paul talks about a mystery in verse 3, revealed in verse 5, mystery in verse 9 which ties in the Creation. And then in verse 10 & 11 it says "to the intent that principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Are we created in order to show something to "principalities and powers in heavenly places" something?

[Sudsy]

I don't believe it is God's nature to support the view of unending torment in hell, period. I don't see the purpose in unending punishment. I do agree that God desires that man should bring offspring into the world.

That is about the best I can put my belief. Sorry, if it is not that clear.

Fair enough. I'm just trying to understand why you think unending punishment is not in God's nature, but that pain and suffering in this life is. Because you could just as well make that argument - that pain and suffering in the world is not consistent with God's nature.

Regarding pain and suffering I would argue that whom the Lord loves He chastises -

“My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives” (Heb. 12:5-6).

Any pain and suffering that comes from God is for a purpose and driven by love for us to be more like Jesus. The idea of unending punishment has no learning purpose that I can see as the punishment has no end.

I think what you are saying is that well, at least pain and suffering in this life comes to an end. But I think your view still must see God as being higher than us with a purpose we can't fully understand in why he does what he does. Which is essentially how those of us that believe in eternal punishment see God. We can't fully understand why there is eternal punishment; we trust God's higher purposes. So in the end what real difference is there between our views? Either way you have to trust that God is good and believe that his ways are higher than our ways.

What I think is a contradiction is to say that one can believe in unending punishment and this belief does not drive a person to do whatever they possibly can to evangelize and hope to rescue everyone they can from such a state of conscious, non ending torment. If this is loving others to not be that involved, I guess I don't understand love. Again, considering my father's response to his belief in hell as a place of unending torment, he lived and preached wherever he could to rescue people from such a place. Those who say they have that same belief but seem content to not evangelize with the Gospel that saves us, imo, do not have a heart belief on the matter.

So, I looked into other possibilities of related scriptures and have become a conditionalist who believes the soul is not inherently immortal but immortality rather is a gift of God to those who believe in what Jesus did to save us. When Jesus said - 'And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell' I take destroy to mean exactly what it means. But I recommend everyone study this out and then if you keep what is called the 'the traditional view', then consider how you are living holding unto this view.

[ken_sylvania]

I don't believe it is God's nature to support the view of unending torment in hell, period. I don't see the purpose in unending punishment. I do agree that God desires that man should bring offspring into the world.

That is about the best I can put my belief. Sorry, if it is not that clear.

Fair enough. I'm just trying to understand why you think unending punishment is not in God's nature, but that pain and suffering in this life is. Because you could just as well make that argument - that pain and suffering in the world is not consistent with God's nature.

Regarding pain and suffering I would argue that whom the Lord loves He chastises -

“My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives” (Heb. 12:5-6).

Any pain and suffering that comes from God is for a purpose and driven by love for us to be more like Jesus. The idea of unending punishment has no learning purpose that I can see as the punishment has no end.

I think what you are saying is that well, at least pain and suffering in this life comes to an end. But I think your view still must see God as being higher than us with a purpose we can't fully understand in why he does what he does. Which is essentially how those of us that believe in eternal punishment see God. We can't fully understand why there is eternal punishment; we trust God's higher purposes. So in the end what real difference is there between our views? Either way you have to trust that God is good and believe that his ways are higher than our ways.

What I think is a contradiction is to say that one can believe in unending punishment and this belief does not drive a person to do whatever they possibly can to evangelize and hope to rescue everyone they can from such a state of conscious, non ending torment. If this is loving others to not be that involved, I guess I don't understand love. Again, considering my father's response to his belief in hell as a place of unending torment, he lived and preached wherever he could to rescue people from such a place. Those who say they have that same belief but seem content to not evangelize with the Gospel that saves us, imo, do not have a heart belief on the matter.

So, I looked into other possibilities of related scriptures and have become a conditionalist who believes the soul is not inherently immortal but immortality rather is a gift of God to those who believe in what Jesus did to save us. When Jesus said - 'And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell' I take destroy to mean exactly what it means. But I recommend everyone study this out and then if you keep what is called the 'the traditional view', then consider how you are living holding unto this view.

And so, because you believe the penalty for sin is punishment followed by annihilation you are willing to stand by as people reject the offer of salvation, because their suffering will only be temporary? Is that what you are saying?

In any event, why do you care if the people who believe in eternal punishment don't evangelize energetically, considering you don't believe anyone will suffer forever due to that failure?

[Marylander]

And so, because you believe the penalty for sin is punishment followed by annihilation you are willing to stand by as people reject the offer of salvation, because their suffering will only be temporary? Is that what you are saying?

In any event, why do you care if the people who believe in eternal punishment don't evangelize energetically, considering you don't believe anyone will suffer forever due to that failure?

The JW's do "door to door" and they believe in annihilation and my JW neighbor boldly stated that he did not want to be in heaven...cuz he wasn't part of the 144000. Also he was in Vietnam and after his deployment he could no longer believe in hell. My Adventist neighbor also believes in annihilation...cuz "no fire burns forever". And I would ask about the rich man and Lazarus... that's a parable. I'm a quiet in the land type despite a belief in hell. We're called to work out our own salvation w fear and trembling, not our spouse's salvation, or our kids. I get back and forth daily with very secular Jewish friends and I have never mentioned anything regarding Christianity. God is a perfect judge, I am not a judge and I look forward to His return. I hope my friends make it, but in the end, I, alone, will stand before God.

And regarding the original post, bringing children into this world gave me pause... it's not something I take lightly...and I sort of understand why someone doesn't want to bring an innocent life into an ungodly world especially if they are not a person of faith.

[Marylander]

It's 2023. Any individual in this world has an unparalleled opportunity to learn the Truth. The Holy Spirit, the Bible, other faithful Christians, the internet, CAM billboards, fellow faithful Christians...

[Neto]

.... And I would ask about the rich man and Lazarus... that's a parable.
....

I would like to ask you to clarify if this is your thought, or if it is a part of something this other person said, and what it means in terms of the discussion here. (I'll just say that many commentators hesitate to call this a parable, and some openly say that it is not. If it is, it is the only one in which Jesus gave a character in a parable a name. I take it as an actual story, not a parable.)

[Soloist]

.... And I would ask about the rich man and Lazarus... that's a parable.
....

I would like to ask you to clarify if this is your thought, or if it is a part of something this other person said, and what it means in terms of the discussion here. (I'll just say that many commentators hesitate to call this a parable, and some openly say that it is not. If it is, it is the only one in which Jesus gave a character in a parable a name. I take it as an actual story, not a parable.)

The other aspect often missed is that it’s not heaven being referred to here.

[Marylander]

.... And I would ask about the rich man and Lazarus... that's a parable.
....

I would like to ask you to clarify if this is your thought, or if it is a part of something this other person said, and what it means in terms of the discussion here. (I'll just say that many commentators hesitate to call this a parable, and some openly say that it is not. If it is, it is the only one in which Jesus gave a character in a parable a name. I take it as an actual story, not a parable.)

My Adventist neighbor considers the story a parable and therefore the state of the rich man is not a portrayal of hell.

[Neto]

.... And I would ask about the rich man and Lazarus... that's a parable.
....

I would like to ask you to clarify if this is your thought, or if it is a part of something this other person said, and what it means in terms of the discussion here. (I'll just say that many commentators hesitate to call this a parable, and some openly say that it is not. If it is, it is the only one in which Jesus gave a character in a parable a name. I take it as an actual story, not a parable.)

My Adventist neighbor considers the story a parable and therefore the state of the rich man is not a portrayal of hell.

Thank you for the clarification. As Soloist pointed out, the story does not depict hell, but something like a 'waiting place' for the final punishment. But although the idea of eternity is not mentioned, it IS a place of conscious torment, at least for the rich man. (Abraham also does not promise him any relief from the torment of that place for him, and the rich doesn't seem to expect that - he only begs for someone to tell his brothers, so that they might avoid that place. But the point of the story has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture - the 'Old Testament' - to find the truth that would provide deliverance from that destination. It also shows Jesus' own respect for the Scripture. It isn't really about "the wages of sin" at all.)

[Sudsy]

[
And so, because you believe the penalty for sin is punishment followed by annihilation you are willing to stand by as people reject the offer of salvation, because their suffering will only be temporary? Is that what you are saying?

No, that is not what I am saying and I think you know that is not what I am saying.

In any event, why do you care if the people who believe in eternal punishment don't evangelize energetically, considering you don't believe anyone will suffer forever due to that failure?

I care that God is being mis-represented when the scripture also says that His mercy endureth forever. I have only asked others to consider this view and if their works with regard to the endless punishment view reflects that view. So, why shouldn't I care as do others here when they think a certain understanding of scripture is incorrect ?