Timeline for How can a theist justify not having children?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 10, 2019 at 15:42 | comment | added | Logikal | I am assuming when you say most theists you ARE NOT referring to Christianity. In Christianity the number of people who actually have faith AND make it to heaven is NOT HALF of the population. Narrow are the ways actually. Most people wont make it to heaven as most people dont have faith in christ. Thus having multiple children does nothing as they can't be forced into faith from God's perspective. Nepotism is NOT allowed. | |
| Jul 10, 2019 at 5:16 | answer | added | reasonet | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 9, 2019 at 21:42 | comment | added | Bread | Theists aren't obligated to produce children like chattel. | |
| Jul 9, 2019 at 20:27 | comment | added | Conifold | What has value, or ought to be done, is what God values or commands, and it is not clear that value of humans adds up numerically. How it does may well be above our finite minds altogether, and quality of souls surely plays a bigger role than numerical quantity. I do not see how universalism helps either. Just because everyone can eventually be saved does not mean that multiplying half-baked souls and setting them up for an arduous path to salvation is necessarily ethical. | |
| Jul 9, 2019 at 20:05 | comment | added | APCoding | @Conifold I suppose that your second point is valid if one does not accept universalism as a theist (if one does, I don't think it stands). As for your first point, how do theists explain the existence of humans? If they say that another human existing has no inherent value, how do they explain God creating humans at all? Essentially, why did God draw the line at the current number of humans we have now? Why is there not either 1) no humans at all, or 2) many more humans than we have currently? | |
| Jul 9, 2019 at 19:50 | answer | added | Chris Sunami | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 9, 2019 at 19:34 | comment | added | Conifold | Why would a theist subscribe to a rank utilitarianism of this sort? Theist ethics is usually deontological, or virtue based. And even if they did, how exactly are they supposed to "raise a child in such a way that it is likely that they will go to heaven" if they have two dozen children to look after, and "especially at very young ages"? Theists, and conservatives generally, explicitly denounce the irresponsibility of such behavior. | |
| Jul 9, 2019 at 15:48 | comment | added | APCoding | @MauroALLEGRANZA For the second question, while I suppose that some theists would not admit this, a theist might either say 1) they would raise a child in such a way that it is likely that they will go to heaven, or 2) accept a universalist theism. If either of those stand, then it could be asserted for at least that person's children. | |
| Jul 9, 2019 at 15:47 | comment | added | APCoding | @MauroALLEGRANZA For the first question, as I tried to outline in the paragraph above, a theist would have to say that having an eternally happy human being is more valuable than not (would you disagree with this?) Therefore, the more humans you have, the more value you have, and hence it should be done. | |
| Jul 9, 2019 at 8:24 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | "a theist admits > 50% of people go to heaven" Why ? What grounds for asserting this ? | |
| Jul 9, 2019 at 8:24 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | "having more people is better than having less people" From what point of view : surviva of the human species, ecology ? | |
| Jul 9, 2019 at 5:40 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jul 21, 2019 at 3:05 | |||||
| Jul 9, 2019 at 3:56 | history | asked | APCoding | CC BY-SA 4.0 |