Florida Shooter Repented - he gets Heaven?

[Ramaraksha]

I think crimes can both be against the state, and against particular persons.

A crime, say, of vandalism of public property, is against the state. Therefore, imo, a judge could reasonably forgive on behalf of the state. It wouldn't always be correct to do so, but perhaps there are cases where a judge can basically forgive the crime.

Something like rape, is against the state, (a person has massively stepped over the rules needed in society), but also a serious crime against a particular person, and it would be seen as outrageous for a judge to forgive someone in that sort of case. However, if the victim herself asks for forgiveness, then that changes things. The judge may still need to take into account things like public safety and deterrence, but I think in some cases a judge could fairly give a very large reduction in sentence.

And how would a victim feel - for eg - someone close to you is raped & the judge gives the guy 2 days in jail? You snuck in the "victim asking for forgiveness" in there but your overall message is that a judge can be lenient. Sure a judge can do anything he or she wants, but is that moral or ethical? That is the question here.

It has happened - people have been let go for serious crimes with just a slap on the wrist - just because they have a right to do it does not mean it is right to do so. Preaching God will do this - forgive people - is wrong - that is the point

 

[southernhybrid]

Evangelical Christians really do believe in last minute repentance. All the killer has to do is ask forgiveness and ask Jesus to be his savior, and he will be "saved." Saved from eternal torture in hell. That's how it works.

But, when I think of that, I usually think of the line from the 1967 original version of the movie "Bedazzled". The devil is speaking of last minute repentance and he says, "I lost Mussolini that way, all that work, then right at the end with the rope around his neck, he says, 'Scusi. Mille regretti,' and up he goes!" ( Mussolini was actually shot, but it's okay to make up stuff in movies or in religion. )

 

[PyramidHead]

Think of what we're saying as a society: that, in addition to deterring certain behaviors by either imprisoning the perpetrator or using him as an example to dissuade others, it would also be good if he suffers for what he did. This element of retribution is so common that we don't even notice it anymore, and it's without any practical function. Why should it make any difference to anybody what happens to the immortal soul of a murderer after death? Is anything accomplished by it either way?

"Without practical function", but retributive punishment is still needed as a justification for punishment. Yes you can appeal to things like deterrence, but then why not use extreme punishments, or even punish the innocent?

I'm not sure I get this comment. There has to be a compelling reason to cause suffering above and beyond what is required for deterrence (which may be nothing at all; maybe punishment isn't a very effective deterrent to begin with).

 

[Bronzeage]

Fear of punishment is not repentance and just saying, "I'm sorry," does not make it so. I'll trust an omnipotent being to know the difference.

Humans often take comfort in illusion. Sometimes the illusion is the possibility of forgiveness, no matter how horrible we've been, and sometimes the illusion is that killing someone who did a horrible thing will make us feel better.

How many people who have had heart attacks, come close to death, swear that they will change? Do they not mean it? Of course they did, with all their heart, but once out of the hospital back to regular life, most of them go back to their old habits don't they?

How many of us have made new year resolutions? Were we just kidding or did we hope to fulfill those resolutions?

That's the real problem with all this repentance stuff - it is good but it is just the first step - not the last - that is why these Death-bed confessions are so wrong - clearly there will be no follow-up, just empty words of repentance

As I said, an omnipotent being should be able to tell the difference. 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.

 

[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.

 

[ronburgundy]

Ironically, the Christian right is sending around a meme about how God couldn't prevent this shooting because he's not allowed in schools. Yet, much like with suicide bombers, the shooters' belief in God likely played a role in his actions, believing that he could just submit to God afterward and be given the greatest reward he could imagine.

Not to mention how idiotic it is to claim that a pathetic God who cannot even get into a school because of human laws would be able to have stopped the shooter anyway.

 

[Elixir]

Ironically, the Christian right is sending around a meme about how God couldn't prevent this shooting because he's not allowed in schools..

Pfffft. Is he allowed in churches? Why doesn't he stop pedophilia, then?

We make/sell active shooter response gear, mostly trauma kits and supplies. After every mass shooting, there's a noticeable uptick in orders. In the last year or so, it has become quite predictable - a lot of individuals will order personal IFAK-style trauma kits, we will get requests for quotes from various sheriffs and police departments. And lately, there will be orders of considerable size placed out of the blue on our website - from churches. Apparently their pockets are plenty deep, prayza-load. Everyone else placing orders like that has to get approvals, formal quotes and sign-offs from bean-counters. But not churches. I always wonder ... why don't they just pass out loaded guns at the door, so all their good guys are ready to take down the bad guy? After all, most of them seem to think that's the solution - for everyone else.

 

[James Brown]

God's apparently not allowed in churches either. Or movie theaters. Or Post Offices. Or businesses. Or homes. Or in the outdoors.

God's apparently not allowed anywhere, really, which doesn't say very much for him. Maybe we'll have to figure this stuff out for ourselves.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Fear of punishment is not repentance and just saying, "I'm sorry," does not make it so. I'll trust an omnipotent being to know the difference.

Humans often take comfort in illusion. Sometimes the illusion is the possibility of forgiveness, no matter how horrible we've been, and sometimes the illusion is that killing someone who did a horrible thing will make us feel better.

Sometimes the illusion is an omnipotent being.

One of the defining events in my deconversion from christianity was realizing that all Hitler's victims could be in hell and Hitler in heaven. And when I asked this question to others they agreed that this was in fact an accurate reflection of the faith we practiced. It certainly helped me realize that my "faith" was a pile of horseshit.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What baffles me are people who forgive killers even when the killer hasn't asked for forgiveness. The only reason I can think of is that they think that if they can convey the message, "No hard feelings!" then the killer will be shocked into remorse.

No, it has nothing to do with the killer. They're telling God, or themselves, that they've reached a level of enlightenment that allows them to forgive those who trespass.

Or, maybe they have reached that level of enlightenment. maybe. Anything is possible.

But it's about them, and their internal landscape. Not the trespassant.

But the killer is no longer running around with his weapon shooting people. If the killer was still doing that I don't think they'd be so forgiving.

You can also interpret forgiveness in this case, where the crime is brutal and heinous, as an acknowledgement of the sanctity and appropriateness of human sacrifice in the name of a god. I can forgive this act because there is something in me that says it's okay.

Forgiveness seems easiest when the killer is either dead or no longer a threat.

 

[Bronzeage]

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 actions?

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.

 

[LordKiran]

What baffles me are people who forgive killers even when the killer hasn't asked for forgiveness. The only reason I can think of is that they think that if they can convey the message, "No hard feelings!" then the killer will be shocked into remorse.

No, it has nothing to do with the killer. They're telling God, or themselves, that they've reached a level of enlightenment that allows them to forgive those who trespass.

Or, maybe they have reached that level of enlightenment. maybe. Anything is possible.

But it's about them, and their internal landscape. Not the trespassant.

But the killer is no longer running around with his weapon shooting people. If the killer was still doing that I don't think they'd be so forgiving.

You can also interpret forgiveness in this case, where the crime is brutal and heinous, as an acknowledgement of the sanctity and appropriateness of human sacrifice in the name of a god. I can forgive this act because there is something in me that says it's okay.

Forgiveness seems easiest when the killer is either dead or no longer a threat.

There's a line in one of my favorite retro-fantasy movies.

"Peace is the gift that heals the giver." Were I more optimistic I'd say christian ideas of forgiveness follow a similar chain of thought and that forgiveness is more about not letting your enemies control you through your hatred of them.

 

[braces_for_impact]

It doesn't matter if he repents, now he'll come back as a cockroach or something. He won't have a higher nervous system, or remember why he's being punished, but if he lives a really, really good life as a cockroach, he may (once he's eaten by a toad) come back as said toad, or maybe, if he was an exemplary cockroach, a small furry marmoset. That makes so much more sense.

I think you are taking off on Reincarnation a bit - but that view is wrong. Basically it is a corruption of Tat Tvam Asi - You Are That - or you become what you are. This young man was born a human, but he behaved more like an animal - he craved blood and that is what he will be - maybe a hyena or a wolf

Oh. That makes SO MUCH MORE SENSE.

 

[Vork]

Think of what we're saying as a society: that, in addition to deterring certain behaviors by either imprisoning the perpetrator or using him as an example to dissuade others, it would also be good if he suffers for what he did. This element of retribution is so common that we don't even notice it anymore, and it's without any practical function. Why should it make any difference to anybody what happens to the immortal soul of a murderer after death? Is anything accomplished by it either way?

"Without practical function", but retributive punishment is still needed as a justification for punishment. Yes you can appeal to things like deterrence, but then why not use extreme punishments, or even punish the innocent?

I'm not sure I get this comment. There has to be a compelling reason to cause suffering above and beyond what is required for deterrence (which may be nothing at all; maybe punishment isn't a very effective deterrent to begin with).

I mean deterrence isn't a good justification for inflicting suffering on people. How about we just find some innocent people to punish in a show trial if that works? How about we execute people for littering?

It's far better, that we actually take account of what people *deserve to suffer* ignoring practical benefits, or with practical benefits only being a secondary concern. If you give someone a deserved punishment, you haven't treated them badly. If, however, you punish someone because it achieves such and such a good for society, that is using someone in an immoral way.

 

[Vork]

For the sake of argument...

How about, God doesn't have the ability to forgive certain sins, (serious crime against individuals), but those sins aren't what is keeping people out of heaven anyway.

There may be various sins that God does have a right to forgive, and if someone is truly repentant, they may have a suitable character to get into heaven; so maybe that's enough that God sends them to heaven.

Is God under a duty to punish people for a crime as serious as multiple murders? Perhaps, and perhaps he does in an intermediate state before they go to heaven. I think at least some Christians have believed in "purgatory".

 

[PyramidHead]

I'm not sure I get this comment. There has to be a compelling reason to cause suffering above and beyond what is required for deterrence (which may be nothing at all; maybe punishment isn't a very effective deterrent to begin with).

I mean deterrence isn't a good justification for inflicting suffering on people. How about we just find some innocent people to punish in a show trial if that works? How about we execute people for littering?

It's far better, that we actually take account of what people *deserve to suffer* ignoring practical benefits, or with practical benefits only being a secondary concern. If you give someone a deserved punishment, you haven't treated them badly. If, however, you punish someone because it achieves such and such a good for society, that is using someone in an immoral way.

Nobody deserves to suffer. We don't inflict suffering on innocent people because they aren't doing anything we wish to deter. We don't execute litterbugs because it would be far too severe a punishment compared to what we wish to deter. If there is a way to deter negative behaviors without inflicting suffering, we should find out what those ways are and immediately start doing them. Again: nobody deserves to suffer.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

For the sake of argument...

How about, God doesn't have the ability to forgive certain sins, (serious crime against individuals), but those sins aren't what is keeping people out of heaven anyway.

There may be various sins that God does have a right to forgive, and if someone is truly repentant, they may have a suitable character to get into heaven; so maybe that's enough that God sends them to heaven.

Is God under a duty to punish people for a crime as serious as multiple murders? Perhaps, and perhaps he does in an intermediate state before they go to heaven. I think at least some Christians have believed in "purgatory".

Why would God not have the ability to forgive certain sins or have a duty to do something he'd prefer not to do? He set up the system and isn't constrained by anything beyond a decision to restrain himself because he feels like doing that today.

That's like saying if I decided not to drink alcohol during the work week, I'm constrained against joining in on an office pub night. There's no actual constraint against me and I can just decide to drink during the week if I want to.

 

[Vork]

For the sake of argument...

How about, God doesn't have the ability to forgive certain sins, (serious crime against individuals), but those sins aren't what is keeping people out of heaven anyway.

There may be various sins that God does have a right to forgive, and if someone is truly repentant, they may have a suitable character to get into heaven; so maybe that's enough that God sends them to heaven.

Is God under a duty to punish people for a crime as serious as multiple murders? Perhaps, and perhaps he does in an intermediate state before they go to heaven. I think at least some Christians have believed in "purgatory".

Why would God not have the ability to forgive certain sins or have a duty to do something he'd prefer not to do? He set up the system and isn't constrained by anything beyond a decision to restrain himself because he feels like doing that today.

That's like saying if I decided not to drink alcohol during the work week, I'm constrained against joining in on an office pub night. There's no actual constraint against me and I can just decide to drink during the week if I want to.

Maybe God doesn't have the ability to forgive certain sins, because they aren't his to forgive. In the same sort of way that we wouldn't be happy about a judge forgiving a rapist.

That kind of fact would apply equally to a deity I would think. Even if God decided to start forgiving such sins, it would seem like, well it isn't real forgiveness because he just isn't properly placed to do it.

 

[Vork]

You can still inflict suffering on innocent people not because *they* are doing something we wish to discourage, but because of general deterrence when other people see them punished for the crime. They don't need to be guilty for that purpose.

If we imagine a rapist and murderer, that let's say had the money to live a life of luxury in prison; and this detail could be kept secret, so it would not diminish the deterrent effect for rich people, it would be widely rejected as an injustice if they actually were living a life of luxury. The public would be just as safe. But that's not enough. Or anyway, that people *do deserve to suffer* fits with common moral intuitions.

 

[Elixir]

That kind of fact would apply equally to a deity I would think. Even if God decided to start forgiving such sins, it would seem like, well it isn't real forgiveness because he just isn't properly placed to do it.

Who the hell cares if it's "real" forgiveness, as long as they get their 72 virgins?
Oh, wait... wrong god. Sorry.