Florida Shooter Repented - he gets Heaven?

[PyramidHead]

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.

Those intuitions are wrong unless they can be justified. If the only material benefit to causing someone to suffer (when he has already been removed from society and there is no need to use him as an example) is to satisfy the emotional craving for bloodlust on the part of some segment of the public, then we should take the high road and fix the bloodlust rather than needlessly hurting someone.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

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.

It's like if the judge had the ability to say "Well, that's a nice tie so I'm saying you're not guilty of rape. Have a nice day" and there was no appeals process or ability to censure or vote out that judge for using this kind of decision making. That's God.

 

[Tigers!]

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.

I am sorry but i cannot forgive you for that blunder.

 

[Tigers!]

Bronzeage was quite correct in an earlier post.
Forgiveness has no bearing upon whether the sinner/criminal faces punishment.
I can forgive one who hurts me, say by assault, but my forgiveness has no bearing on whether the perpetrator faces punishment or not. The consequences for me and them cannot be removed i.e. I have the scars, mental and physical, of the assault and they have the consequences of appearing before the legal system.
But if I do not attempt to forgive them then I condemn myself to a prison without bars as I dwell constantly upon what was done to me.

Forgiveness is so hard that's why it is rarely done.

 

[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.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think that's a good point. And it might not be an issue just for god. It's also a potential problem that elves could have, albeit to a lesser degree.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'll trust an omnipotent being to know the difference.

It'll make no difference either way, for the Christian God, if you don't get your repentance in during your very, very fleeting time on earth. There is no parole process in hell, apparently.

 

[Vork]

Those intuitions are wrong unless they can be justified. If the only material benefit to causing someone to suffer (when he has already been removed from society and there is no need to use him as an example) is to satisfy the emotional craving for bloodlust on the part of some segment of the public, then we should take the high road and fix the bloodlust rather than needlessly hurting someone.

I could say that your own assumptions need to be justified. You are assuming that this is "bloodlust" rather than a virtuous desire for justice. You are assuming that your own approach is more civilized. In the philosophy of law, in the past, they already tried to abandon retribution, and it didn't really work out.

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. To punish on the grounds of deterrence however, is to use someone in an impersonal way for a "greater good". They are just a piece in the system that needs to be manipulated for a certain result. It's dehumanizing treatment.

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

 

[Vork]

Forgiveness has no bearing upon whether the sinner/criminal faces punishment.
I can forgive one who hurts me, say by assault, but my forgiveness has no bearing on whether the perpetrator faces punishment or not.

I disagree.

It would be true that you can be willing to forgive someone, and yet still expect that they go to court and take their punishment.

But it's also possible, that you can forgive, and decide not to press charges against someone. Of course the police/prosecution can override that decision in some cases; but in other cases that may listen to the wishes of the victim in what they do. (Depending on the type of crime and the legal system in question.)

It's also possible, that even if someone is prosecuted and found guilty, that a victim may be able to request a lenient sentence, and perhaps that will make a difference in the mind of the judge.

 

[ruby sparks]

But if I do not attempt to forgive them then I condemn myself to a prison without bars as I dwell constantly upon what was done to me.

So, are you by extension saying, or could we say, that god should at least try to forgive?

Heaven as a prison without bars. I never really thought of it like that but, yes, possibly you are on to something there.

 

[Vork]

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]

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.

Exactly. Many haven't thought these things through. Take eternal punishment for example. It's overused, imo.

 

[Learner]

Or misunderstood perhaps. I'm in the same boat as Tigers and Bronzage, being that their perspective of forgiveness is consistent with the theology.

Forgiving those that harm you, is indeed difficult even for theists.

"Vengeance is mine sayeth the LORD" which does seem to have that similar emotional ring about it as Hell and obviously both words and meanings are brought up as debateables.

Hell is for the wicked and is not for every sinner. A lesser crime won't be given the same punishment as a crime so henious in a court.

 

[ruby sparks]

Hell is for the wicked and is not for every sinner. A lesser crime won't be given the same punishment as a crime so henious in a court.

So where do you reckon the line should be drawn? When is eternal punishment justified and when not?

For example. Not loving God. What should that get you in the heavenly-weavenly courts?

I guess I'm just trying to think of the worst possible infringement.

 

[Learner]

Hell is for the wicked and is not for every sinner. A lesser crime won't be given the same punishment as a crime so henious in a court.

So where do you reckon the line should be drawn? When is eternal punishment justified and when not?

The line is (for lack of better discription): the non-remorseful and non-repenting evil and harmful doings we all detest (atheists would detest with some of the same).

(God as Judge imo has the better details to know precisely where to draw the line on each individual.)

 

[ruby sparks]

The line is (for lack of better discription): the non-remorseful and non-repenting evil and harmful doings we all detest (atheists would detest with some of the same).

What about repentance after earthly death? I mean, we only get like....80 years if we're lucky. That's about 0.0000000.....[snip]........000000000001% of our subsequent existence. We could screw up.

What about getting another chance, later on?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

 

[Learner]

For example. Not loving God. What should that get you in the heavenly-weavenly courts?

I guess I'm just trying to think of the worst possible infringement.

Not according to the gospels. I think the mistake regarding non-Christians would ALL go to Hell is also erroneous and useless as an argument against the theology.

The whole empahsis is the "Afterlife" or ever lasting life "with" God and IS not about the rest should therefore automatically go to Hell. Hell is for the purely wicked and those that are left simply will exist-no-more - snuffed out- after judgement i.e. no eternal punishment neccessary in this respect to the much lesser crime .

Although imo as a theist they would at least eventually get the answers and know GOD does exist and is real after all.

 

[ruby sparks]

For example. Not loving God. What should that get you in the heavenly-weavenly courts?

I guess I'm just trying to think of the worst possible infringement.

Not according to the gospels. I think the mistake regarding non-Christians would ALL go to Hell is also erroneous and useless as an argument against the theology.

The whole empahsis is the "Afterlife" or ever lasting life "with" God and IS not about the rest should therefore automatically go to Hell. Hell is for the purely wicked and those that are left simply will exist-no-more - snuffed out- after judgement i.e. no eternal punishment neccessary in this respect to the much lesser crime .

Although imo as a theist they would at least eventually get the answers and know GOD does exist and is real after all.

I see.

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

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?