Florida Shooter Repented - he gets Heaven?

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

But it does deal with the moral dimension of it. According to Christian theology, God is the source of morality. Things are right and wrong because God says they're right and wrong, not because of an objective analysis of the situations. They are wholly based on his opinion.

If God changes his mind and says "I now feel that it is immoral to eternally torture people for the limited actions they take over the course of the few decades of their lives and the moral solution is now to have them exist eternally in Paradise where the better environment will allow them the opportunity to become better people, so the sins they commit during their mortal lives are no longer a relevant factor when considering admission to Heaven and everyone gets in", then that's it. There's no process of appeal for the current residents to use to stop the new neighbours from moving in. God made a decision about what counts as moral and immoral and that decision is final (pending his changing his mind again, of course).

If people don't like it, then it's just kind of tough shit for them, the same as how it's tough shit about the whole "Thou shalt not steal" being immoral when a guy found a new bike sitting unchained outside the mall and he really wants to take it for his own. Really wanting something to be moral doesn't matter if God decides to disagree with you about what is or is not moral.

 

[Vork]

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.

I have no interest in continuing any conversation with you.

 

[Vork]

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.

But it does deal with the moral dimension of it. According to Christian theology, God is the source of morality. Things are right and wrong because God says they're right and wrong, not because of an objective analysis of the situations. They are wholly based on his opinion.

If God changes his mind and says "I now feel that it is immoral to eternally torture people for the limited actions they take over the course of the few decades of their lives and the moral solution is now to have them exist eternally in Paradise where the better environment will allow them the opportunity to become better people, so the sins they commit during their mortal lives are no longer a relevant factor when considering admission to Heaven and everyone gets in", then that's it. There's no process of appeal for the current residents to use to stop the new neighbours from moving in. God made a decision about what counts as moral and immoral and that decision is final (pending his changing his mind again, of course).

If people don't like it, then it's just kind of tough shit for them, the same as how it's tough shit about the whole "Thou shalt not steal" being immoral when a guy found a new bike sitting unchained outside the mall and he really wants to take it for his own. Really wanting something to be moral doesn't matter if God decides to disagree with you about what is or is not moral.

I think that's a misrepresentation of Christian theology in general. That may be what some Christians think, but it's hardly going to represent all of Christianity.

 

[Vork]

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.

Well I don't even want to talk to you either. You're acting like a hostile jerk over issues I never even mentioned in the first place! (Or I made one mention of eternal punishment to say I wasn't defending it after you mentioned it first.)

It's quite possible to have versions of theism without the idea of eternal punishment. If that's not possible for Christianity because of Christian scripture well that's an issue for a particular religion.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that's a misrepresentation of Christian theology in general. That may be what some Christians think, but it's hardly going to represent all of Christianity.

Well, of course not. If you ask ten Christians about what Christian theology says about any given topic, you're likely going to get a minimum of a dozen different responses. Their subject matter has more reboots and retcons than DC comics.

That doesn't change the fact that, in Christianity, one of the basic premises is that God is the one who sets the rules. He's not one who's bound by the rules via anything other than a decision on his part to follow the rules he himself made up.

Bringing that back to the OP, if God says "This guy has repented his sins and I can read his mind so I know he's being honest about that. Therefore, his sins are forgiven and he gets into Heaven", then the guy's sins are forgiven and he gets into Heaven - full stop. If that leads to a situation where someone else ends up saying "Hey, this dude shot me in the face when I was a teenager and now he's moving in next door to me? Da fuck is up with that?", then tough shit for that guy. If it leads to yet another person saying "Hey, I went through a lot of trouble my whole life restraining myself from violence and treating everyone with respect and consideration and I end up in the same orientation class as the guy who shot up a high school? Da fuck is up with that?, then tough shit for that guy too.

God has decided that forgiveness of sins due to honest repentance is the moral action and therefore it is the moral action. If you feel that this is a misrepresentation of a fundamental Christian position then please let me know which branches of Christianity you're referring to that don't hold to this view and I will look through the links you provide backing that up and respond accordingly.

 

[Vork]

I don't know of anything in the universal creeds that says that off the top of my head. Or anything in the Bible that really goes into that issue of whether God is just free to make up any rules he wants. Maybe the potter stuff in Romans would come close, but that would still be very controversial in Christian theology. Also, there may be other texts like the statement that "God can't lie" that suggest God is indeed bound by certain unchanging standards.

So it seems to me that Christian theologians could easily reject such an idea, and it's difficult to see that it's a "basic premise" of Christianity, if it's not spelled out in the bible or universal(ish) creeds.

 

[ruby sparks]

I have no interest in continuing any conversation with you.

That's ok. Just a word of warning. If you secretly are a christian and not just defending their god on their behalf, then you didn't exactly step up to the plate there, and that may not go unnoticed if you whoops I mean they are right.

 

[Vork]

I have no interest in continuing any conversation with you.

That's ok. Just a word of warning. If you secretly are a christian and not just defending their god on their behalf, then you didn't exactly step up to the plate there, and that may not go unnoticed if you whoops I mean they are right.

I doubt there are many "secret Christians" around. You probably don't need to worry about them so much.

 

[ruby sparks]

I doubt there are many "secret Christians" around. You probably don't need to worry about them so much.

It hardly matters when there's people like you around to explain, allegedly on their behalf, what their god can and can't do.

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.

 

[PyramidHead]

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.

Well, determinism can be dehumanizing, but it's still true. Nobody is 'robustly' responsible for their actions in the way that retributive justice requires, because nobody is the cause of all the relevant antecedent conditions leading to whatever action they took.

 

[Vork]

I doubt there are many "secret Christians" around. You probably don't need to worry about them so much.

It hardly matters when there's people like you around to explain, allegedly on their behalf, what their god can and can't do.

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.

Well let me suggest that, by all means believe whatever anti-religious things you want, but maybe stop trying to voice your opinions if you can't be bothered to properly engage or actually learn the real positions of what you're attacking.

 

[Elixir]

I doubt there are many "secret Christians" around. You probably don't need to worry about them so much.

*POOF!*
(This message will self-destruct in ten seconds)

I warned you...

Well let me suggest that, by all means believe whatever anti-religious things you want, but maybe stop trying to voice your opinions if you can't be bothered to properly engage or actually learn the real positions of what you're attacking.

Thank you for the suggestion. If I may offer another, how about stop trying to voice your opinions if you can't be bothered to produce an actual disembodied, omnipotent super-being for examination?

 

[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.

Well, determinism can be dehumanizing, but it's still true. Nobody is 'robustly' responsible for their actions in the way that retributive justice requires, because nobody is the cause of all the relevant antecedent conditions leading to whatever action they took.

Determinism as a confident position has been largely abandoned. But perhaps you mean, "determinism or some form of partial determinism (so to speak) mixed with indeterminism that is equally hostile to moral responsibility" is true. If so, that's a pretty big metaphysical claim and I don't think it's even close to proven.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't know of anything in the universal creeds that says that off the top of my head. Or anything in the Bible that really goes into that issue of whether God is just free to make up any rules he wants. Maybe the potter stuff in Romans would come close, but that would still be very controversial in Christian theology. Also, there may be other texts like the statement that "God can't lie" that suggest God is indeed bound by certain unchanging standards.

So it seems to me that Christian theologians could easily reject such an idea, and it's difficult to see that it's a "basic premise" of Christianity, if it's not spelled out in the bible or universal(ish) creeds.

Well, if he can't "make up any rules that he wants", where are you suggesting that Christians say that God gets all his rules from?

For instance, take the commandment "Thou shalt not steal". Why do you feel a Christian would say that this is a commandment? By that I mean, would they say that stealing is immoral because of all the logical reasons which make it wrong and God was just passing that information along or would they say that stealing is immoral because God has taken a position against stealing and you are therefore defying God by taking something which isn't yours?

The former reduces God to nothing more than a messenger and makes him fundamentally irrelevant in any questions about morality. That doesn't sound like a Christian position to me.

Also, who is it that you're claiming is binding God to these standards? If it's just himself deciding to follow these standards, that's actually the definition of a whim.

 

[Elixir]

Also, who is it that you're claiming is binding God to these standards?

That's the $64,000 question.
And here's (one of) the $64,000,000 answer(s):

 

[PyramidHead]

Well, determinism can be dehumanizing, but it's still true. Nobody is 'robustly' responsible for their actions in the way that retributive justice requires, because nobody is the cause of all the relevant antecedent conditions leading to whatever action they took.

Determinism as a confident position has been largely abandoned. But perhaps you mean, "determinism or some form of partial determinism (so to speak) mixed with indeterminism that is equally hostile to moral responsibility" is true. If so, that's a pretty big metaphysical claim and I don't think it's even close to proven.

What aspect of it is unproven? I agree with your re-phrasing, but left out indeterminism for brevity. As you say, neither one helps retributive punishment. The only thing that could rescue it is libertarian free will, and I have yet to see anything approaching a convincing argument for that position.

 

[fast]

Also, who is it that you're claiming is binding God to these standards?

That's the $64,000 question.
And here's (one of) the $64,000,000 answer(s):

View attachment 14741

But he always tells a joke at the beginning of his sermons, so how about a little latitude in this case!

 

[Vork]

I doubt there are many "secret Christians" around. You probably don't need to worry about them so much.

*POOF!*
(This message will self-destruct in ten seconds)

I warned you...

Well let me suggest that, by all means believe whatever anti-religious things you want, but maybe stop trying to voice your opinions if you can't be bothered to properly engage or actually learn the real positions of what you're attacking.

Thank you for the suggestion. If I may offer another, how about stop trying to voice your opinions if you can't be bothered to produce an actual disembodied, omnipotent super-being for examination?

So you think people should be able to give arguments against theistic religion, and no one should be critical of those arguments (which may perhaps be bad arguments) unless they can produce a deity for examination? That's sensible in your mind?

So you basically want a forum where no one challenges any anti-religion statement? It's just filled with people saying "I think religion is stupid for this reason", "I think God is cruel for this reason", and no one objects to any of these arguments--even if they are genuinely bad arguments--unless they can produce a deity for examination?

A forum with zero disagreement wanted? It all has to be anti-religion?

If that's what is wanted, then it's easy for the admin/mods to enforce such a rule. But it sounds a little bit dogmatic perhaps...

 

[Vork]

I don't know of anything in the universal creeds that says that off the top of my head. Or anything in the Bible that really goes into that issue of whether God is just free to make up any rules he wants. Maybe the potter stuff in Romans would come close, but that would still be very controversial in Christian theology. Also, there may be other texts like the statement that "God can't lie" that suggest God is indeed bound by certain unchanging standards.

So it seems to me that Christian theologians could easily reject such an idea, and it's difficult to see that it's a "basic premise" of Christianity, if it's not spelled out in the bible or universal(ish) creeds.

Well, if he can't "make up any rules that he wants", where are you suggesting that Christians say that God gets all his rules from?

For instance, take the commandment "Thou shalt not steal". Why do you feel a Christian would say that this is a commandment? By that I mean, would they say that stealing is immoral because of all the logical reasons which make it wrong and God was just passing that information along or would they say that stealing is immoral because God has taken a position against stealing and you are therefore defying God by taking something which isn't yours?

The former reduces God to nothing more than a messenger and makes him fundamentally irrelevant in any questions about morality. That doesn't sound like a Christian position to me.

Also, who is it that you're claiming is binding God to these standards? If it's just himself deciding to follow these standards, that's actually the definition of a whim.

I have given my own suggestion in the euthyphro thread, but I'm not saying that's Christian theology. You can always check Christian sources for yourself.

 

[Bronzeage]

Also, who is it that you're claiming is binding God to these standards?

That's the $64,000 question.
And here's (one of) the $64,000,000 answer(s):

View attachment 14741

Jim and Tammy Bakker had 5 similar houses. When he was removed from his position at the Church of God, he was suddenly homeless. It turned out, this tax dodge was not a particularly shrewd move. Jimmy Swaggart faced defrocking for his misdeeds, and CoG officials assumed his house and properties were owned by his church. They were quite mistaken. Swaggart held deed and title to real estate and buildings, his personal home, schools, and church.