The Evangelical Universalist Forum

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

Evangelical Universalism Arguments for Evangelical Universalism
#21

If life begins at conception, and if dying in the womb would have spared him some 20 or 30 plus wasted years, the anguish of knowing he betrayed the Savior, ending his life in suicide, and an unusually long time in Gehenna, yes!

But if he’s to be finally reconciled to God, and an eternity of happiness awaits him after that, it could never be truly said that it would have been better for him if he had never existed–And I still think the alternate reading of Matt. 26:24 makes more sense (from a universalist pov) than the standard translation (if your observations on the context of the final clause are correct.)

#22

Jason’s. (I didn’t want to quote it, because it was so long).

#23

Personally I’d need to see much more evidence for the idea (if I’m following Jason) that “better not to have existed” was a first-century stand-in for “to be pitted,” and that’s it. Does the phrase in Jeremiah (I think) and Job really establish this? I don’t see how.

Be that as it may, Universalists certainly have to avoid the conclusion that Jesus is referring to an objective state of affairs, i.e., it’s being objectively the case that Judas’s never-having-existed is better than his having-existed. UR posits the ultimate/objective value of existing over non-existing for all human beings regardless of any conceivable depth of sin and despair. It can never be true that to not exist is ultimately better than to exist.

How best to avoid this interpretation of Jesus’ words is the trick. It seems most plausible to me that Jesus is referring to an experience Judas will have and act upon (despairing of life and committing suicide) in response to his betrayal and not to some objective fact of the matter about Judas’s value as a human being that shall endure post-mortem.

Tom

#24

I basically agree with Michael. Jesus did NOT say that Judas would have been better off if he had never existed. Rather, Jesus was saying that, since Judas wasted his entire earthly existence, it would have been better for Judas if Judas had died in his mother’s womb.

#25

Thank you Geofry.

Given the standard translation, that’s the only way I could understand the verse (as a universalist.)

#26

II don’t see how that’s even possible given UR (Geoffrey and Michael). How is it true given Judas’ life on earth that it would have been better for Judas had he died in his mother’s womb if it’s also true that Judas will one day be reconciled to God and experience a bliss that surpasses all his earthly grief, dispair and suffering? If you mean Judas will believe (falsely, given his eventual reconcilation to God) he would have been better off never having been born, then yes, that’s exactly what I’m arguing. Is that what you’re saying?

Tom

#27

No, I;m saying he would have actually been better off if he had died in the womb.

Remember, my sister died in the womb.

I think she may have to learn, and grow, and experience some of what we experience here somehow, but I don’t think she’ll actually have to go thru hell before she gets to heaven (whereas, if anyone will, Judas will–and already did, to some degree, in his last hours on earth.)

My sister is therefore better off than Judas.

And it follows that Judas would have been better off if he (like my sister) had died in the wmmb.

Do you see how that’s possible Tom?

Doesn’t it say somewhere that God is “the Savior of all, especially those who believe”?

Doesn’t it say “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power”?

Doesn’t this imply that the shorter road to heaven is better (more especially blessed) than the long road thru hell?

Isn’t that what Geofrey and I are saying?

Where is your disagreement here Tom?

BTW: I think you’ll find that Gearge MacDonald agreed with Geofrey and me here (saying that the time that Judas spent here was all wast, leaving him not better, but worse.)

#28

Michael: Do you see how that’s possible Tom?

Tom: Hi Michael,

I’m afraid I don’t see it as very plausible. I can’t see that by “to have never been born” Jesus consciously meant “to have been conceived and to die in the womb.” I think it commits an unwarranted and unnecessary anachronism to attribute to Jesus such an opinion on the unborn (we simply don’t know and can’t say what Jesus thought about the unborn). And Jesus was perfectly capable (and the gospel writers equally so) of saying “to have died in the womb.” But he doesn’t say that. True, the words “to have never been born” allow, strictly speaking, for the death of the unborn. After all, to be conceived and not born alive is by definition “to have never been born.” But I hardly think the phrase or context warrant such a reading. I rather think the simplest option is to understand “to have never been born” as “to have never existed at all…period.”

But let’s assume your understanding. Two things follow I think. First, surely every human being ever born qualifies. Though Judas may be an extreme example, if what you’re suggesting is Jesus’ meaning, then it becomes the case that it’s better for every person ever born to have died in the womb, for every person ever born sins, offends God, and distributes his/her share of suffering and evil. And surely to die in the womb and grow up in a post-mortem context (whatever its risks) is “better” than to live on into the certainty of sin and evil. So at its very best (it seems to me) your view proves too much.

Secondly, it’s simply not the case that JUDAS would be “better off” had he died in the womb and found faith in some post-mortem context than to find faith (as he now shall) on the other side of hell as the betrayer of Christ. No suffering or evil experienced this side of heaven is “comparable” to the glories that shall be revealed in us…and Judas. The grief and pain of his betrayal also shall not be comparable to his pleasure and joys. Judas will not spent the rest of eternity mourning the permanent loss of ecstasy and glory because of his sin, forever wishing he HAD died in the womb so that his experience of heaven might be more than it is. That’s to be less than redemed; less than healed. So your sister shall not be “better off” than Judas. All shall be redeemed. All gloried. All ‘incomparably’ joyful and fulfilled.

Michael: I think you’ll find that George MacDonald agreed with Geofrey and me here (saying that the time that Judas spent here was all waste, leaving him not better, but worse).

Tom: I don’t disagree, but that’s not to agree with your take on Jesus’ declaration here. Judas ended his life far worse off than he otherwise might have ended it. That’s not the point. The point is that as universalists who believe all are redeemed and restored and that God shall be all in all, by definition we relativize all fallenness (eschatologically speaking). However Judas ended his life he shall not be the worse off when he’s restored and healed.

What do you believe people are restored TO, Michael? If all are restored and reach their fullest potential wherein all our natural capacities and dispositions are maximized as God designed them and for his glory, then who shall be the worse off for having taken the long road? Nobody.

That’s not to say taking the long road through hell ought not to be avoided. It ought to be avoided. But WHY? Because taking that road renders persons permanently and irrevocably worse off even in heaven? No. It’s to be avoided because God is infinitely deserving of our love and devotion and every second we fail to give it we suffer and God is not recognized as he deserved. UR (as I understand it) is just the belief that Judas’ act, however depraved, cannot forever rob God of all that God designed and deserves Judas to be. That’s the gospel, right? Judas shall one day be such that his having taken the long road shall no longer impair Judas’s full participation in the glories of redemption. And if THAT be the case, then it can never be the case, objectively speaking, that Judas would be better off to have died in the womb than to have taken the long road.

I could be wrong (I’m just thinking all this out loud), but the best bet (unless Jason is right and “to have never been born” is a first-century Aramaic euphemism for “to be pitied”) seems that Jesus isn’t making some metaphysical claim about the permanent loss of value of Judas in the afterlife or the enduring and objective preferability of his having never been born over his having lived the life he did live. He is rather predicting the sad conclusion that Judas himself shall reach about his own life. In the end Judas in fact DID conclude that his not living is preferable to his living.

Tom

#29

I wonder if His Mother ever told Him how His (as yet unborn) cousin lept in his mother’s womb at the sound of her voice?

Whether she did or not, Jesus was fully God and fully man, and I think it’s reasonable to assume that He knew when human life begins.

He knew that Judas would betray Him, He knew that Peter would deny Him, He knew of His own pre-existence with the Father, but He knew nothing about when human life begins (and I’m not attributing any “oppinion” to Him, I’m assuming He could have known that non-birth doesn’t equal non-existence.)

Do you think every single human being ever born has to suffer to the extent Judas did in the hours before he took his own life, and then has to go thru a post-mortem hell of unknown duration, before they’re finally reconciled to God?

Do you believe my sister has (or had) to go through such a hell?

Is she no better off than Judas?

Is Peter (who repented of his denial of Christ, and died a martyr) no better off than Judas?

Then there’s no such thing as “a better resurrection.”

God isn’t “especially” the Savior of those who believe.

And those who have part in the first resurrection aren’t more “blessed” than those who go through the lake of fire.

If Judas is ultimately reconciled to God, surely part of his repentance and reconciliation will be to see that his life here on earth was a tragic wast (and that he would have been better off if he hadn’t been born in that time and place, only to betray his Savior.)

You’re comments here make no sense Tom.

#30

I’m sorry I’m not making any sense to you.

Michael: If Judas is ultimately reconciled to God, surely part of his repentance and reconciliation will be to see that his life here on earth was a tragic wast (and that he would have been better off if he hadn’t been born in that time and place, only to betray his Savior).

Tom: Yes, he will see that his life “here on earth” ended in tragic waste. And surely to see it as a waste is to judge that there are better ways his life could have ended. I’m not denying any of this, Michael. I’m saying that this loss shall not permanently impair Judas’ capacities, once redemed, to fulfill all that God intends those capacities to be. Judas shall one day NOT be a waste in any sense of the word and his having been a waste shall neither injure nor decrease his function as a created being to reflect and enjoy God’s life.

Now, if THAT be the case, Michale, then in what sense will your sister remain forever better off than Judas? None that I can see. True, if we compare one segment of Judas’ life (say, the worst segment at the end) with what his life would likely be had he died in the womb, then yes, to have died in the womb would have been better than to end his life as he did. But again, the same could be said of every human being who has ever lived into adulthood IF you just compare each individual’s sin and wreckage (which put Christ on the Cross) with the relative ease and preferrability of finding faith after having died in the womb.

Michael: Do you think every single human being ever born has to suffer to the extent Judas did…?

Tom: No. But you’re sadly misunderstanding my point. The question isn’t whether or not others suffer as Judas did. The question is whehter others, like Judas, would have been better off to have died in the womb than to have lived to commit the sins they did. Don’t compare others with Judas. Compare the actual sinners we all become to the preferrability of having died in the womb and finding faith that way. Surely it’s true that we ALL would have been better off dying in the womb.

But we don’t die in the womb, and we’re all redemed and healed and perfected. So whatever crimes we commit in this life, whatever we waste, ultimate reconciliation restores and heals. THAT is the point, and that’s the problem with the view (yours and Geoffrey’s) that Judas is objectively and permanently worse off than he would have been had he died in the womb. You have a different vision of restored humanity than I do if you think Judas’s waste abides forever (i.e., permanently impairs him). But if you agree that Judas’s redemption means his restoration and healing, then you agree the day shall come when all our sins (Judas’s included) will be ‘incomparable’ to our bliss. It seems to me that you want to insist Judas’ waste IS comparable to his future bliss, so comparable in fact that his waste will forever lessen his well-being. He’ll be irrevocably worse off for having wasted his life even once he’s redemed.

My point is only this: Once you grant that all the effects of sin and evil shall be permanently obliterated by a glory so unspeakable that the sins which once rendered us worse of than we might have been will shall not be worth mentioning, then that fact becomes part of every fact of life, good and bad, including Judas, and as such *no waste can ever cheapen the objective worth and value of a human being *God values enough to redeme and heal. However “worse off” Judas was, it is either his own subjective perceptions that drive him to suicide (which has my vote) or a qualified comparison between states of differing values neither of which affect the fullness that shall be ours in Christ.

Tom

#31

But his life here (however long it was) still will be.

No matter how happy he ends up (thanks only to God’s mercy, and his Savior’s sacrifice–and only after a time in gehenna–since he died in dispair, not believing in Christ as his Savior, and since God is “especially” only of those who believe), he would still have been better off if he had died in the womb.

Eternal happiness minus ne day gehenna is better then eternal happness plus one day in gehenna.

Yes.

Ciaphas, Hitler, Stalin, etc.

I don’t say those who die in the womb will skip all the growing pains of this life.

As we discussed elsewhere, that would seem to make this life meaningless–and they may somehow participate in the growing pains of life (either now, in a less blessed resurrection, or when all lives are reviewed at the Great White Throne–where some might be very grateful they weren’t born, and some very glad they were.)

But I do say that many who died in the womb will have a shorter and smoother road to heaven than Judas, Hitler, or Stalin.

Do you disagree?

I fail to see what you’re arguing about here Tom (unless you’re an ultra-universalist who believes there’s no hell at all?
That some (like Judas and Ciaphas) would have been better off if they hadn’t been born.

#32

Michael: Eternal happiness minus no day gehenna is better then eternal happness plus one day in gehenna.

Tom: So you have one form of eternal happiness that is “better than” another form of eternal happiness. And what lifts one above the other and makes it better is the evil of our pasts which shares in determining our total happiness in heaven. The less sin you commit, the “better” your happiness in heaven. And however happy Judas shall be, he’ll be less happy than (or, his happiness will be “worse than”) he would have been had he not denied Christ.

This is a very different vision of creation restored than my own. But we can just disagree too! :sunglasses: Personally I don’t think sin shall permanently ravage God’s purposes for people.

Tom

#33

I’m suprised at your capacity to misunderstand (and/or misrepresent) what’s being said.

It’s not a question of sin permenantly ravaging anything, it’s a question of sonner being better than latter.

You seem to maintain that the believers (of whom God is said to be Savior in a special sense) are no better off than unbelievers.

That those who enjoy the life of the coming age are no better off than those who spend that time shut out of the kingdom (and weeping and gnashing their teeth.)

That there’s no such thing as “a better resurrection,” or a “special” salvation.

Once again, do you believe my sister has (or had) to go through such a hell?

Is she no better off than Judas?

Is Peter (who repented of his denial of Christ, and died a martyr) no better off than Judas?

Unless you’re an ultra-universalist (who believes there’s no hell at all) **it seems obvious that it’s better to be a sheep than a goat. **

And if that’s true (if life begins at conception, and if those who die in the womb will get to heaven without having to share aionian punishment with Satan, his angels, and the goats), it seems equally obvious that it would have been better for some if they hadn’t been born.

#34

not sure if this is still on topic (or if someone’s already tried this), but if you have two people, x and y, and **x **suffers for most of his four score and ten years, and you have y who has a relatively happy life time.

assuming for the sake of argument that neither have sinned to the point of any nasty punishment happening. flash of refining fire and boom they’re in heaven.

they both go to heaven, and all the suffering of x is alleviated, all tears whiped, etc…eventually,** x** is as happy as anyone else up there.

none of this has to happen to** y**, who just goes into eternal bliss.

regardless of the end state of x and** y**, couldn’t it be said that** y** had a better life while on earth? would not x’s life be one to be avoided?

now take two people a and b.

a sins terribly in his life, and suffers remorse and a form of punishment at some point, either pre- or post-mortem.

b does not sin terribly much, and suffers what most of us can expect of guilt or refining.

both are, ultimately, redeemed. in 9 billion years, both have been washed of all traces of suffering and sin, and are equally happy.

regardless of this, is not** b**'s life to be envied? he hurt few people and didn’t need a great deal of refining to be redeemed.
a, however, is not to be envied because God is just, and a would’ve had to face consequences for his sin.

now, in comparison…is it not best to live the life of y, and avoid sin, and avoid suffering?
but realistically, as it’s hard to avoid both, is not even x still better off than b?

my feeling is, regardless of what 9 billion years bring, and how “equal” our joy will be by then:

**a **is not to be envied…needless hurt and needless punishment that could be avoided. time will erase the pain and shame, but still not ideal.
**b **is better off than a, but could still have been more righteous.
x is better off than a AND b, because x has tried to be righteous and largely succeeded. great will be his joy!
y is better off than a, b and x, as y has done his best to be righteous and has had a happy life.

in summary
all i’m saying is that no matter how temporary our present evil is…does that make it any less worth avoiding? isn’t it better, regardless of the end, to avoid evil?

#35

I can’t word things better than I have. Sorry Michael. No worries. It’s all good!

Tom

#36

Exactly!

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.

Thank you!

#37

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.

Corpselight: regardless of the end state of x and y, couldn’t it be said that y had a better life while on earth? would not x’s life be one to be avoided?

Tom: Yes.

Corpselight: both are, ultimately, redeemed. in 9 billion years, both have been washed of all traces of suffering and sin, and are equally happy. regardless of this, is not b’s life to be envied?

Tom: Not necessarily. It’s to be envied from within the immediate context of life on earth. But if one remains enviable over the other, then we need to ask what it will MEAN to possess an experience in heaven that is enviable by another. You said they’re both “equally happy.” Well, whence the envy then? What grounds shall there be in one that makes his state more enviable/desirous than the other if both are equally happy? If there are such grounds, then in what sense is their happiness equal?

Corpselight: in summary, all i’m saying is that no matter how temporary our present evil is…does that make it any less worth avoiding? isn’t it better, regardless of the end, to avoid evil?

Tom: Yes. But the ‘yes’ is relative to the comparative worth of the two states: worshipping God is better than not worshipping God, etc. As long as this “better than” doesn’t entail permanent, abiding consequences for the quality of happiness. Michael made it clear that he doesn’t think Judas will be permanently worse off for having wasted his life, and I’m glad he clarified that, because it didn’t look like that was his view when he said: “eternal happiness + no days in hell” is better than “eternal happiness + one day in hell.” That looks to me like two different happinesses, one greater/better than the other. That equation gives you “eternal happiness + however many days one spends in hell” = ___________. Equals what? Michael’s wording suggested to me that he thought it can equal different things some “better than” the others. But eternal happiness IS the SUM. It comes AFTER the equals sign. Our happiness in heaven is the sum total of our destiny and purpose. It takes into account all objective valuation and truths. It already includes how many days we spent in hell (none or a million).

Tom

#38

No they don’t.

Scripture says that there’s “a better resurrection” for those who overcome (the elect, who are “especially” saved), and that they will not be hurt by the second death.

This is called “the resurrection of life.”

The other resurrection is called a resurrection unto judgement (not condemnation, or damnation.)

If life has any meaning, it would seem that those who never overcame, never made any chioces, and never really experienced anything of life will have to come up in the resurrection of judgement (where they can be given chioces to make, things to overcome, and standards to judge and be judged by.)

I don’t think any punishment awaits them, but I do believe they’ll have to learn, and grow, and sooner or later realize that they (of and by themselves) are sinners who fall short of the glory of God (much the way we do.)

They may also have to witness a whole host of human sins (and in some way feel some of the regrets of those sinners) when lives are reviewed before the Great White Throne.

Peter was an adult sinner (who denied Christ, repented, and overcame), and will have part in the first (and better) resurrection.

It would not be true to say that it would have been better for him if he had died in the womb.

He does not qualify under that discription.

With all due respect, this looks like jibberish to me.

If you were given the choice, would you choose a million days in hell, or none?

Is none not better than a million?

What would you say if God gave you such a choice Tom?

Would you reason philosophically, and say “Hmmm…, my happiness in heaven will be the sum total of my destiny and purpose either way, it will take into account all objective valuation and truths, so it doesn’t really matter–I don’t care God”?

Is that what you’d say Tom?

(If not, you’re clearly speaking Jibberish here.)

#39

They do from where I stand. So though we disagree, at least we can understand each other.

I’m sorry that’s the case.

I’d choose none, of course. But that’s irrelevant to the point I’m making. Ask Hitler or Judas after a million years in heaven whether either thinks their having gone through hell has permanently impaired their happiness, fulfilment, or natural capacities to relate to God in comparison to your sister or anybody who didn’t waster their life like Judas or Hitler. I’m pretty convinced the answer will be, “Not at all.” But I *sense (forgive me) that in spite of your agreeing that no depth of depravity can permanently damage or impair the happiness and fulfilment of redeemed persons, you think a truthful answer would run something like, “Well, yes. I’d be better off now had I not screwed up as much as I did.” But if you agree with me that the truth is that they shall not be anywise the worse off THEN on account of earthly crimes, then you’re a step closer to grasping my point.

God DID give me the choice, Michael, and I chose to follow him now. But you’re entirely missing my point. Are you reading where I’ve clearly said sin IS to be avoided? Did you read where I said WHY it’s to be avoided?

I do not believe our evil actions, however heinous, can permanently damage us or prevent our eventually becoming all God intends us to be. Some will go through hell to get there. Some won’t because they commit to the journey and receive God’s grace now. But the former will not be forever disadvantaged on account of taking the painful road. So in whatever sense the latter road is “better” than the former, it cannot be because it makes an eternal difference. My feeling is that once this is recognized, the objective value of persons and the inevitable fulfilment of that value for all persons will reduce to virtual meaninglessness any abiding difference between the former and the latter roads. We won’t be sitting around in heaven comparing notes and concluding that one is better off than another for having taken the less painful or sinful road.

If that’s all jibberish, then so be it. It matters to me and helps me fix what I think is likely to be Christ’s meaning with respect to Judas.

Tom

#40

But entirely relevant to the point I’m making.

Irrelevant to me, and what I’ve been saying here.

It’s just a ** straw man** that you keep bringing up.

The point is…

Did you read that Tom?

Yes, I read what you said about sin being something to be avoided, and you’ve been entirely missing my point.

And Christ’s words would only imply an eternal difference if He said (or meant) that it would have been better for Judas if he never existed (not if life begins at conception, and He knew not being born didn’t equate with non-existence.)

Again, this is just a straw man of your own making that you keep trying to knock down here.