The Evangelical Universalist Forum

It would be better to not have been born...

Evangelical Universalism Arguments for Evangelical Universalism
#41

Thanks for engaging what I actually say so carefully.

It’s not a straw man. It’s a substantive point about the irreducible value of human beings and the certainty that every person shall enter into the fullness of personal being and relationship with God and others. That’s what heaven is. I think what’s proximally “better” and “worse” off in this life ought to take that into account. That’s all I’m saying.

My response to corpselight has been posted for some time. Maybe you didn’t read it.

Tom: I’d choose none, of course. But that’s irrelevant to the point I’m making….

Michael: But entirely relevant to the point I’m making.

Tom: Obviously it’s relevant to the point you’re making, as relevant as my comment is to the points I’m trying to make.

Look, all I’m saying is that the idea that Jesus is saying Judas’s betrayal brings it about that on balance Judas would be better off having died in the womb to take the post-mortem journey to God doesn’t seem plausible to me for the reasons I’ve shared. In addition, I don’t see that Judas had to die in any case. He might just as well have repented, not committed suicide, and followed Christ in grace and forgiveness. That WAS a possible future Judas faced. That being the case, it can’t be true that Judas reached a point where he was, objectively speaking, better off dead in the womb than alive and loved and forgiven by God and invited by God to go on living in that forgiveness.

My reasons don’t convince you. I’m OK with that. I don’t need them to convince you. If you find your view convincing, then I’m happy for you as well.

Blessings,
Tom

#42

It is a straw man, if you read copselight’s post you should have been able to see why, and your response to his post was entirely irrelevant.

I question whether you read his post (or any of mine.)

If you have, I suggest you brush up on your reading comprehension skills, because neither of us have been talking about permanent punisment or torment (that’s your straw man.)

Read his post again (and try to undestand it.)

#43

I’m sorry for destracting the conversation with irrelevancies. I try to contribute as honestly as I know how. The point about sin’s inability to permanently damage a person isn’t ITSELF the point, of course. But it is relevant to judgments we make now.

Unless Corpselight has a comment or question for me, I’ll not intrude on the conversation and shall leave you to it.

Tom

#44

Thank you Tom.

But you’ve so confused the issues here, that I’d like to re-state my position.

As Corpselight said.

My position is that (if all are saved in the end, and life begins at conception) it makes as much sense to say that my sister (who died in the womb) is better off than Judas (who was a thief, betrayed the Savior, was guilty of inocent blood, took his own life, and must answer for all this) as it does to say (as Copselight did in his hypothetical example) that Y is better off than A (regardless of what 9 million years bring, or how equal their joy will be then.)

If life begins at conception, and Jesus knew this, his words would not imply that it would have been better for Judas if he had never existed.

Not being born wouldn’t equal non-existence, and His words would only imply that those who died in the womb are more to be envied than someone with the record Judas had at the end of his life.

My position is that this makes perfect, literal sense, given any version of UR that includes any concept of temporal post-mortem punishment.

#45

i think you’re both arguing the same thing from two angles.

TGB is saying that everything will eventually equal out, from the point of view of infinity
Michael is apparently not disagreeing with this (nor do i)

Michael is saying that from our point of view now up until whenever the memories/shame of judgement fade, the life of the righteous is MUCH better than the life of the unrighteous, as the latter has to endure judgement which the former escapes.
that’s what i meant by “enviable”…i meant from our current temporal point of view, which i think TGB understood and took into account.
TGB does not seem to have an issue with this either.

so…can’t we all just get along? :smiley:

#46

Thanks for the note, Corpselight. I do agree that living righteously is “better than” living in sin (‘enviable’ is fine). And I agree that no present sin shall impair the final and fullest expression of each person’s being. I just don’t think it plausible at all to imagine Jesus meant to say that Judas would have been better off having died in the womb.

Michael and I seem incapable of civil discussion. This isn’t the first time the convo has melted down. But it shall be the last.

Tom

#47

Michael: And it follows that if Jesus knew that life begins at conception, He could have been saying that Judas would have actually been better off if he hadn’t been born (because of the evil he would have avoided.) That’s exactly the point I’ve been trying to make to Tom.

Tom: And that’s exactly what I’ve understood your point to be. I haven’t misunderstood you. I just think it unlikely that Jesus had this in mind. My biggest problem with it is that every adult sinner qualifies under its description. Is that what Jesus really had in mind? I doubt it.

Jason: I think Michael emphasized more recently that he’s talking about the question of avoiding the eonian punishment. Since not every adult sinner avoids that (there are sheep as well as goats for example, as Michael also mentioned in relation), Jesus’ statement could be said to be metaphysically true (not only a cultural euphamism as I’ve been arguing) for Judas compared to, say, Simon Peter, despite similar anguish for betraying and being condemned by Christ in this life.

(This assumes Judas didn’t avoid the eonian punishment after all by repenting of his sin and trying to do justice with God instead.)

The statement would still hold comparatively true even if the eonian punishment wasn’t hopeless: better to have avoided the punishment at all one way or another. Similarly, if someone causes one of the Lord’s little ones to stumble, it would have been better for them to have hung a ton of stone hung around the neck and be drowned in the sea (i.e. to have died) before then.

Granted, this doesn’t (immediately) take into account the concept of ‘felix culpa’: the notion that God will bring a blessedness out of salvation of the fallen that is unique to the fallen for having been saved (unlike those who never fell and so who cannot personally experience this blessing, only at secondhand).

However, either result would involve a different kind of ‘better’, especially from the experiential side. This no doubt leads to some of the confusion, since in different ways either of the states (redemption or unfallenness) can be considered ‘better’ than the other.

#48

Thank you Jason.

True, but I’m assuming suicide and dispair are sins in themselves.

I think that is what Geofrey, myself, and Corpselight have been trying to say here.
.

I hadn’t thought of the milstone passage (but now that you point it out, there does seem to be a similar thought there.)

Thanks again for your comments here Jason.

#49

suicide and despair are not sins…

and also, i believe Jason is largely right: it is a cultural expression. we have examples of similar usages that don’t literally mean it would be better not to live at all.
life is better than no life at all.

i think what Jason has said about felix culpa is compelling too. i think there could be as many experiences of true fulfilment as their are people. ie what will satisfies me in the new kingdom (a mansion full of snakes and spiders to look after and a band to play with) will not be what satisfies a guy who would rather his mansion were more like a villa with loads of rooms full of model trains.
so maybe it’s wrong to compare my future happiness with someone else’s…both in quantity and quality. all we can know is that God has promised to whipe every tear, beat every sword into a plowshare, etc…and so we know that God will bring true joy to every heart…no matter how long it takes. and that joy will be Ultimate for every person in the end, when death and hades are finally destroyed.

i suppose what i’m saying is this is rather a pointless argument over semantics.

#50

Then I didn’t sin last month (when I tried to end my own life, and woke up two days latter in ICU)?

Facing another day is still a challenge, and if I didn’t think suicide was a sin…

I doubt anyone would say that Judas ends up happier than Peter (or Hitler ends up more blessed than his victims), and if they end up in equal bliss (after Judas and Hitler have suffered temporal correction for their sins), your own logic shows that those who avoided (or were blessed with avoiding) the evil of that suffering are better off (or more blessed) than those who didn’t.

As Jason said (concerning aionian punishment):

#51

i’m sorry you are struggling with depression at the moment. what i meant was this.
ok, suicide is a “sin” in the sense that it is not God’s plan…it stops Him being able to use you in this life, and any lessons yet to be learned…well who knows how God handles that.

but i would not view the despair and depression that drives people to suicide or self-harm as crimes in the same way i would judge theft or assault or lying etc.

suicidal urges and depression are things that should not be condemned. you are NOT a bad person because you feel that way. and God would rather gather you into His arms and tell you that it’s all going to be ok, just hang on…put your trust in Him.
i don’t believe that successful suicides earn judgement…they are sad things, to be mourned. a person who cannot stand living and ends their life is a VICTIM.

there is that awful Catholic belief that it is a “mortal” sin…but i don’t see that anywhere in Scripture.

you must fight the feelings of depression/worthlessness or whatever it is that’s causing you to see life this way. i would suggest STRONGLY seeing your doctor and getting medical help. there is no shame in this.
much depression in the world is a medical problem…but due to horrible, unfair, judgemental views, it is stigmatised and people are often told that if they have enough FAITH they can beat it. God says…have faith but TAKE SOME ANTIDEPRESSANTS as you are out of balance and it CAN BE HELPED.
sorry if this is saying stuff you already know…i can only relate what i’ve seen and experienced. and i’ve seen enough people speaking badly about the medical help that’s available that i have to risk overstating the case. also, sorry if this is irrelevant to you.

taking antidepressants and getting help for it is no different from getting a crutch if you’ve broken your leg, or taking cough medicine for a cold.

regardless, i can see that this is an emotive issue for you. i really don’t agree that those who die in the womb are somehow better off, if the life they were heading for involved the potential for sin or suffering. there is also good in the world, and that good is worth living for.

life is better than death.

i don’t feel you can quantify eternal happiness in the way you are seeking to. we cannot base entire doctrines on what are essentially figures of speech.

#52

I don’t know where God said “have faith but take some antidepressants,” but I do know that not everything has a biochemical cause or solution.

I saw the one person I loved more than anything on earth (and who loved and trusted me more than anyone ever will) suffer for three months.

I was told that letting her die wasn’t murder, but I couldn’t let her die, and she did everything I wanted (for me, and it only prolonged her suffering.)

If I didn’t believe in God, sin, reconciliation, and a life beyond this, I couldn’t go on (and no pill is gonna change that, or should change that.)

I hope life is better than death (and there’s still life for my mother), but believe me—suffering (however temporal) is better avoided.

If Judas suffered the way I have in the last hours of his life, if he’s suffered like that post-mortem, and if he could have attained bliss without that suffering (by having died in the womb), it would truly have been better for him if he hadn’t been born.

#53

that’s why i said sorry if what i said was irrelevant. but i know many people that should heed that advice.
it came from a place of caring. i am genuinely sorry to hear of the suffering you’ve endured.

just for solidarity, you aren’t the only one, i’ve been witness to some pretty awful things too (mother related as well). God will heal your hurts, though. and yes, God will bring about His purpose. there is hope, and more than hope.

i think you have a different perspective of what Jesus said…and a valid one. i don’t know that i totally agree from my point of view, but i think i begin to understand what you mean.

#54

Thank you.

#55

Compare father and son:

David: The LORD is my shepherd; he refreshes my soul; I fear no evil; He is with me; my cup overflows; goodness and love follow me; I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.

Solomon: Humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place…the dead are happier than the living. But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.

Interestingly, Solomon says its better not to have been born because of the evil that people must witness and endure in *this *life. Given this, perhaps Jesus was saying to Judas, “You are about to do the most evil deed that ever will be done. You will discover a horror within your own soul that goes deeper than any man’s darkness. It will be more than you can bear. Woe to you, Judas. It will destroy your mind and your body. But know this. Whatever you do to me and to yourself, I will always be your friend.”

#56

And maybe the alternate translation suggested by Paidon on the other Judas thread is correct.

Maybe He was saying it would have been better for Him (in His humanity) if the man who betrayed Him hadn’t been born.

Or maybe He was really saying it would have been better for Judas if he had died in the womb, because he would have attained bliss without all the prior horror, anguish and torment.

Why are some here stuck on just one interpretation?

Particularly when that interpretation is of a kind that would seem the least defensible to any non-universalist believer with an inclination to take scripture literally (in the absence of a compelling reason to do otherwise.)

#57

Hi Michael,

The older I get, the less I know. I love Ps 131…

1 My heart is not proud, LORD,
my eyes are not haughty;
I do not concern myself with great matters
or things too wonderful for me.
2 But I have calmed and quieted my soul.
I am like a weaned child with its mother;
like a weaned child I am content.

3 Israel, put your hope in the LORD
both now and forevermore.

#58

Since you don’t know–I guess you’d agree that the alternate translation (suggested by Paidon on the other Judas thread) could be correct.

Jesus could have been saying it would have been better for Him (in His humanity) if the man who betrayed Him hadn’t been born.

(Or He could have really been saying that it would have been better for Judas if he had died in the womb, because then he would have attained his final bliss without all the prior horror, anguish and torment,)

Thank you Allen.

#59

Another important factor in this discussion is consideration of the Greek word which has been translated as “born”. The word is the passive form of “γενναω”. Strictly speaking this word does not mean “born” but means “begotten” or “generated”. If it means “born” then the active form means “give birth to”, and Matthew chapter 1 would begin with “Abraham gave birth to Isaac; Isaac gave birth to Jacob; Jacob gave birth to Judas, etc.” The active form when applied to a woman, would probably be best rendered as “conceived”.

However when we look at a clear case of someone being born, a different Greek word is used: the passive form of “τικτω”. For example “τικτω” rather than “γενναω” is used in the following sentence uttered by the angel to the shepherds:

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. Luke 2:11

So the phrase in question perhaps should be translated, “It would have been better for him if that man had not been conceived.”

#60

Thanks Paidion. If this plot thickens much more, we’ll need a hammer and chisel.

(Once again I’m dismayed by how much we lose in translation.)