Florida Shooter Repented - he gets Heaven?

[Learner]

I see.

As I said, we could have just badly screwed up beforehand, on earth. What about getting another chance, later on?

Well God is a fair and Righteous Judge is all I can say. I don't know every detail but personally I really do hope there was some sort of chance.

Also, and I think you're probably going to find this one trickier than the others, are the rules for humans the same as for elves, or different?

Rules for Good and Evil applies to all types of (biblical) entities I would say.

 

[ronburgundy]

Without regard to one's beliefs, or whether there is a God or not, one thing cannot be disputed, what happens after a person is dead, has no effect on them while alive.

But beliefs about what happens after a person is dead certainly does effect them and their actions while alive. That is among the countless harms of religions that base what happens after death on the decisions of a God whose goal is not to optimize human well being in the natural world.

How is that different from believing there is nothing after death? Why wouldn't that effect a person and their ?

People do things for a lot of reasons, and the claimed reason is seldom the true answer. If you want to believe that believing the possibility of salvation after committing a horrible crime, makes someone a bad person, that's as good a reason as any.

Do you think consequences of actions impact how a person acts? You should, because a century of science confirms it (not to mention every moment of everyday experience).
However, it is not the actual consequence that matter, but the beliefs about the consequences that are the proximal impact on actions. Real world consequences only have an indirect influence on future behavior via impacting beliefs about consequences, which are what determine actions. IF those beliefs deviate from objective consequences, then objective consequences no longer influence actions.

All of the "many reasons" for which people do things share the common property of being believed consequences of those actions. And almost all of those reasons are beliefs that the action will improve the actors own well being (whether in the form of short term pleasure or satisfying long term desires). Afterlife beliefs completely alter the calculus of what those consequences appear to be, as does the belief that you'll be loved by a God even if every human on earth despises you for the action. And if you believe that this God has its own criteria for rewards that are not contingent on the objective harm you cause others (as most theists believe), then you are more likely to act in ways that have no regard for the objective harm you cause others.

It is rather simple. If the other kids on the playground punish you for picking on the gay kid, you are less likely to do it. But if your daddy only gives you love and rewards if you pick on the gay kid, then you are likely to ignore the consequences from the other kids and pick on the gay kid. God beliefs operate no differently than actual rewards and punishments by one's earthly parent, except they are often much stronger effects on behavior because the consequences are believed to be more severe and lasting.
Likewise, if you know an act will be unforgivable to all humans and they will want to kill you or punish you for the rest of your existence, then you are less likely to do it. But you also believe in a God whose will forgive and reward you anyway, and that his opinion is the only one that really counts, then you become far more likely to commit that act than you would without that God belief.

 

[ruby sparks]

Rules for Good and Evil applies to all types of (biblical) entities I would say.

Not elves then.

 

[Learner]

Rules for Good and Evil applies to all types of (biblical) entities I would say.

Not elves then.

Should elves not be included?

 

[ruby sparks]

Are they in the bibble?

 

[Keith&Co.]

For example, God can't let evil people into heaven. Why not?-- Because a heaven filled up with evil people isn't really a "heaven" at all.

When i was a believer, the concept of Hell really bothered me.
I couldn't imagine that i could enjoy paradise if i knew that someone was somewhere, suffering for all eternity. I got the message that Christains, we were supposed to love our enemies. How could anyone with any sort of empathy, much less love, relax in Heaven if one person is in Hell?

The many Christians i've met who LOVE the idea of hell, whose eyes get shiny as they describe the torments being suffered by evolutionists, murderers, rapists, atheists, Democrats, anyone who they feel deserves infinite punishment for finite crime, THOSE people seem, to me, to be a problem for Heaven's nature. They're looking forward to finding a cloud where they can look down into Hell, and see various people burning in the lake of fire. They absolutely salivate at the thought of being beloved of God and an important part of the afterlife will be the fact that those in Hell will be able to see them, up in Heaven, enjoying themselves at the sinners' expense. I know they salivate because after these discussions i often have to clean spittle off my glasses.

SO i guess it all depends on what really is meant by Heaven, what the nature of it is. I'd figure a being of unending mercy and infinite benevolence would want to find a way for everyone to be there... Not find excuses to exclude people he's said to love.

- - - Updated - - -

Are they in the bibble?

Well, Satyrs and Unicorns are...

 

[Bronzeage]

How is that different from believing there is nothing after death? Why wouldn't that effect a person and their ?

People do things for a lot of reasons, and the claimed reason is seldom the true answer. If you want to believe that believing the possibility of salvation after committing a horrible crime, makes someone a bad person, that's as good a reason as any.

Do you think consequences of actions impact how a person acts? You should, because a century of science confirms it (not to mention every moment of everyday experience).
However, it is not the actual consequence that matter, but the beliefs about the consequences that are the proximal impact on actions. Real world consequences only have an indirect influence on future behavior via impacting beliefs about consequences, which are what determine actions. IF those beliefs deviate from objective consequences, then objective consequences no longer influence actions.

All of the "many reasons" for which people do things share the common property of being believed consequences of those actions. And almost all of those reasons are beliefs that the action will improve the actors own well being (whether in the form of short term pleasure or satisfying long term desires). Afterlife beliefs completely alter the calculus of what those consequences appear to be, as does the belief that you'll be loved by a God even if every human on earth despises you for the action. And if you believe that this God has its own criteria for rewards that are not contingent on the objective harm you cause others (as most theists believe), then you are more likely to act in ways that have no regard for the objective harm you cause others.

It is rather simple. If the other kids on the playground punish you for picking on the gay kid, you are less likely to do it. But if your daddy only gives you love and rewards if you pick on the gay kid, then you are likely to ignore the consequences from the other kids and pick on the gay kid. God beliefs operate no differently than actual rewards and punishments by one's earthly parent, except they are often much stronger effects on behavior because the consequences are believed to be more severe and lasting.
Likewise, if you know an act will be unforgivable to all humans and they will want to kill you or punish you for the rest of your existence, then you are less likely to do it. But you also believe in a God whose will forgive and reward you anyway, and that his opinion is the only one that really counts, then you become far more likely to commit that act than you would without that God belief.

I appreciate the sermon, but who said consequences don't impact actions? When did cessation of existence stop being a consequence of death? Why would one consequence affect behavior, while the other doesn't?

It seems there is a group of people who do things of which you don't approve, and ascribe their actions to a belief that something will happen after they die. That's fair enough, but this is true for all people, even if the "something" is just decomposition. I don't know anyone who thinks they are going to wake up in the morning and go to work after they die. Either belief will impact a person's actions. To deny this is to believe that a perceived future makes no difference in a person's decisions.

 

[Vork]

That makes no sense. How would they not be his to forgive? The only relevant aspect of sins being forgiven, as it pertains to the conversation, is the ability of the sinner to enter Heaven. God is the gatekeeper of that and forgiving sins is simply his saying "Even though you have done this, you get to enter Heaven". There are absolutely no constraints on his ability to do this aside from the constraints which he decides to give himself and he can ignore those whenever he wants to for whatever reason he wants to.

Well you have a different view of God to me. I think that God would have to operate under certain constraints.

For example, God can't let evil people into heaven. Why not?-- Because a heaven filled up with evil people isn't really a "heaven" at all. God can't just decide to let everyone in, without radically changing the nature of what it is like.

That's not a constraint on him, though. It's like saying that since I like healthy eating, I'm constrained to have vegetables with dinner every day. That's not a constraint on me, that's a choice I make.

God is free to make the choice to let everybody in, even if that radically changes what the nature of Heaven is like. There's nothing stopping him from doing that aside from his own whims, so there's not any kind of constraint.

Desire for goodness isn't just a "whim" however. If God just follows any "whim" he would fail to qualify as being morally good.

And I would actually call it a "constraint" that you can't just eat anything and be "healthy eating". That's a constraint of human physical nature.

And I think it's surely a type of constraint that God can't just let everyone into heaven where heaven keeps its original meaning.

For you to suggest that God "isn't constrained" (in this case) requires that he throw out his plans and his moral goodness; and I would say that's just obviously a type of constraint on his behaviour. It's not the same as eating healthily because you enjoy doing so. Or even eating healthily because it's a good thing to do, even if you would prefer a cheeseburger.It's rather that the only way you could do something is via a massive cost that you probably aren't willing to pay. Certainly theism requires that God act in moral ways. God can't just act on a whim to do anything at all.

 

[ruby sparks]

That's not a constraint on him, though. It's like saying that since I like healthy eating, I'm constrained to have vegetables with dinner every day. That's not a constraint on me, that's a choice I make.

God is free to make the choice to let everybody in, even if that radically changes what the nature of Heaven is like. There's nothing stopping him from doing that aside from his own whims, so there's not any kind of constraint.

Desire for goodness isn't just a "whim" however. If God just follows any "whim" he would fail to qualify as being morally good.

And I would actually call it a "constraint" that you can't just eat anything and be "healthy eating". That's a constraint of human physical nature.

And I think it's surely a type of constraint that God can't just let everyone into heaven where heaven keeps its original meaning.

I myself am at the point where I actually have so much trouble, for so many reasons (including not even knowing where to start) thinking that anyone can actually believe that sort of thing that I can't be bothered to even make a comment beyond (a) saying it truly astounds me that anyone could actually believe it's coherent in any way whatsoever and perhaps (b) offering a suggestion, which would be, by all means go ahead and believe this sort of stuff, but perhaps give serious consideration to stopping trying to explain it. Possibly Tom will raise a few points but personally I can't even summon up the interest to do anything other than shake my head in genuine amazement.

 

[Vork]

That's not a constraint on him, though. It's like saying that since I like healthy eating, I'm constrained to have vegetables with dinner every day. That's not a constraint on me, that's a choice I make.

God is free to make the choice to let everybody in, even if that radically changes what the nature of Heaven is like. There's nothing stopping him from doing that aside from his own whims, so there's not any kind of constraint.

Desire for goodness isn't just a "whim" however. If God just follows any "whim" he would fail to qualify as being morally good.

And I would actually call it a "constraint" that you can't just eat anything and be "healthy eating". That's a constraint of human physical nature.

And I think it's surely a type of constraint that God can't just let everyone into heaven where heaven keeps its original meaning.

I myself am at the point where I actually have so much trouble, for so many reasons (including not even knowing where to start) thinking that anyone can actually believe that sort of thing that I can't be bothered to even make a comment beyond (a) saying it truly astounds me that anyone could actually believe it's coherent in any way whatsoever and perhaps (b) offering a suggestion, which would be, by all means go ahead and believe this sort of stuff, but perhaps give serious consideration to stopping trying to explain it. Possibly Tom will raise a few points but personally I can't even summon up the interest to do anything other than shake my head in genuine amazement.

Maybe you are just a genuinely "confused" individual. But looking at your previous posts, I would say that you're deliberately trolling. So yeah, good luck with that...

 

[ruby sparks]

Maybe you are just a genuinely "confused" individual. But looking at your previous posts, I would say that you're deliberately trolling. So yeah, good luck with that...

Not confused and not trolling. The apologetics you came out with are just complete and utter garbage from start to finish, that's all.

One more thing, if some ancient writings, that you for some reason think are holy or something, advocate for and warn about eternal punishment then you should at least have the gumption to accept that they do and the implications of that for your so-called loving god. And please, spare me any tortured hermeneutics you may indulge in about it.

 

[Vork]

Maybe you are just a genuinely "confused" individual. But looking at your previous posts, I would say that you're deliberately trolling. So yeah, good luck with that...

Not confused and not trolling. The apologetics you came out with are just complete and utter garbage from start to finish, that's all.

One more thing, if some ancient writings, that you for some reason think are holy or something, advocate for and warn about eternal punishment then you should at least have the gumption to accept that they do and the implications of that for your so-called loving god. And please, spare me any tortured hermeneutics you may indulge in about it.

Well you sound very confused, because I didn't say anything about ancient writings being "holy or something", neither did I cover up or deny that any particular ancient writings advocate for eternal punishment; or say that such a thing wouldn't have "implications" for the morality of a deity.

You are just inventing things that I never actually said, (and don't believe), so you can rant and rave.

 

[ruby sparks]

.... I didn't say anything about ancient writings being "holy or something", neither did I cover up or deny that any particular ancient writings advocate for eternal punishment; or say that such a thing wouldn't have "implications" for the morality of a deity.

You are just inventing things that I never actually said, (and don't believe), so you can rant and rave.

I thought you were a Christian. Possibly my mistake. Which god were you on about in that case?

 

[Vork]

.... I didn't say anything about ancient writings being "holy or something", neither did I cover up or deny that any particular ancient writings advocate for eternal punishment; or say that such a thing wouldn't have "implications" for the morality of a deity.

You are just inventing things that I never actually said, (and don't believe), so you can rant and rave.

I thought you were a Christian. Possibly my mistake. Which god were you on about in that case?

If you look back at the discussion, I was defending one detail of the (probably) Christian system "for the sake of argument". i.e. I was arguing it's not a major problem if God can't forgive some sins against persons. (If only the victim can forgive those sins.)

 

[ruby sparks]

.... I didn't say anything about ancient writings being "holy or something", neither did I cover up or deny that any particular ancient writings advocate for eternal punishment; or say that such a thing wouldn't have "implications" for the morality of a deity.

You are just inventing things that I never actually said, (and don't believe), so you can rant and rave.

I thought you were a Christian. Possibly my mistake. Which god were you on about in that case?

If you look back at the discussion, I was defending one detail of the (probably) Christian system "for the sake of argument". i.e. I was arguing it's not a major problem if God can't forgive some sins against persons. (If only the victim can forgive those sins.)

So what god do you believe in then, if any? Not the Christian one, apparently.

- - - Updated - - -

Here was the context:

What the retributive theory of punishment does, is that it treats people as responsible moral agents, that can deserve praise or blame, or indeed deserve punishment. It humanizes people in how it treats them.

Again, I have to totally agree. My favourite is eternal punishment. Though I do think it should be restricted to only those cases and instances where it can be justified.

Note that I didn't actually defend "eternal punishment", where it is very questionable that such a thing can actually be deserved.

But it's good that you're a supporter of retributive punishment. A lot of people today have some very fuzzy thinking where they think they are being "progressive" and "humane" to reject it, but of course they haven't really thought it through very well.

 

[ruby sparks]

And I think it's surely a type of constraint that God can't just let everyone into heaven where heaven keeps its original meaning.

This use of the present tense is confusing, for a god that you say you are just defending for the sake of argument.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That's not a constraint on him, though. It's like saying that since I like healthy eating, I'm constrained to have vegetables with dinner every day. That's not a constraint on me, that's a choice I make.

God is free to make the choice to let everybody in, even if that radically changes what the nature of Heaven is like. There's nothing stopping him from doing that aside from his own whims, so there's not any kind of constraint.

Desire for goodness isn't just a "whim" however. If God just follows any "whim" he would fail to qualify as being morally good.

And I would actually call it a "constraint" that you can't just eat anything and be "healthy eating". That's a constraint of human physical nature.

And I think it's surely a type of constraint that God can't just let everyone into heaven where heaven keeps its original meaning.

For you to suggest that God "isn't constrained" (in this case) requires that he throw out his plans and his moral goodness; and I would say that's just obviously a type of constraint on his behaviour. It's not the same as eating healthily because you enjoy doing so. Or even eating healthily because it's a good thing to do, even if you would prefer a cheeseburger.It's rather that the only way you could do something is via a massive cost that you probably aren't willing to pay. Certainly theism requires that God act in moral ways. God can't just act on a whim to do anything at all.

That's still not a constraint, though. A constraint means that something impedes you. Nothing impedes him. If God decides that Hell and Purgatory were mistakes and the morally good action is to let everybody into Heaven regardless of what they did in their lives, then there's nothing impeding him from just letting everybody into Heaven and the current residents of Heaven just have to get used to their new neighbours.

If God's whims happen to have him come to a new conclusion about what's morally good, he can actually do anything at all based on that whim. That's the thing about being omnipotent - it's not a trait which is logically consistent with having constraints.

 

[Jobar]

Has anyone here read Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's novels Inferno, and Escape From Hell? Those are set in a Hell modeled after Dante's famous poem, but with one important difference- after long and sufficient repentance, it's possible to leave Hell. Both are wonderful reads, and are deeply philosophical examinations of the concepts of sin, repentance, punishment, and redemption. Both fine and entertaining tales, as well.

 

[Vork]

That's not a constraint on him, though. It's like saying that since I like healthy eating, I'm constrained to have vegetables with dinner every day. That's not a constraint on me, that's a choice I make.

God is free to make the choice to let everybody in, even if that radically changes what the nature of Heaven is like. There's nothing stopping him from doing that aside from his own whims, so there's not any kind of constraint.

Desire for goodness isn't just a "whim" however. If God just follows any "whim" he would fail to qualify as being morally good.

And I would actually call it a "constraint" that you can't just eat anything and be "healthy eating". That's a constraint of human physical nature.

And I think it's surely a type of constraint that God can't just let everyone into heaven where heaven keeps its original meaning.

For you to suggest that God "isn't constrained" (in this case) requires that he throw out his plans and his moral goodness; and I would say that's just obviously a type of constraint on his behaviour. It's not the same as eating healthily because you enjoy doing so. Or even eating healthily because it's a good thing to do, even if you would prefer a cheeseburger.It's rather that the only way you could do something is via a massive cost that you probably aren't willing to pay. Certainly theism requires that God act in moral ways. God can't just act on a whim to do anything at all.

That's still not a constraint, though. A constraint means that something impedes you. Nothing impedes him. If God decides that Hell and Purgatory were mistakes and the morally good action is to let everybody into Heaven regardless of what they did in their lives, then there's nothing impeding him from just letting everybody into Heaven and the current residents of Heaven just have to get used to their new neighbours.

If God's whims happen to have him come to a new conclusion about what's morally good, he can actually do anything at all based on that whim. That's the thing about being omnipotent - it's not a trait which is logically consistent with having constraints.

That's not what theists (or many theists) actually say about omnipotence. Also the idea that God could just decide to make things moral or immoral on a whim is highly questionable. Actually, that's the kind of thing that atheists would often object to, (can morality just be the whims of a deity?), and at least some theists would agree with that objection.

The OP poster was reasonable to question if God could forgive all sins. Your approach of "God can just do anything he likes" isn't really going to be a satisfying answer, because it doesn't deal with the moral dimension of it, or the fact that God is constrained by some actions being logically inconsistent with achieving certain good purposes.

 

[ruby sparks]

Still not getting it yet, are you? Still missing (or avoiding) the point.

Also, get around even if only allegedly 'for the sake of argument' to eternal punishment at some stage. You seem to agree that you can't think of a way to justify it. Which leaves you with, I think either 'god's mysterious ways' (cue theme music from The Twilight Zone as any attempt to understand is conveniently jettisoned) or........not a truly loving, forgiving god. Some dude that made up a system where there's eternal suffering for many of his creations because he thought it was a fab idea to invent an exclusive club system for them.

Tell you what. I don't even want you to answer. Talk to Tom. Ciao.