Four callous murderers are sent to jail for 25 years each. After 20, they come to a parole board, to see if they are reformed, ready to be released. In a marvelous turn of technology, a machine is invented, similar to a lie detector, but much more detailed, much more accurate. This tests the truth of what they are saying with 100% accuracy and reads what is in their hearts and what is in their minds. This machine I will dub the "mind reader" for argument's sake. (note, for the purpose of this post, I am refering to all the murderers as "he", but their sex is irrelevant).

"Are you repentant", the board asks. "Do you feel you are ready to be let out into society".

One says straight out that he is not repentant. He is glad he did what he did, the person deserved death for accidentally stepping on his flower garden. I would do it again, in a heartbeat, he screams. If I am sorry, i am sorry for being caught. However, it is unfair for you to leave me in prison, what i did, I considered to be right.

The mind reader reads the man's thoughts, finds him to be telling the truth.

The second says that he is truly sorry for what he did. It has been a burden on his heart, he's lost sleep over it, he can't bear to remember the evil that he'd committed. And if he were released, he would be a productive member of society, a totallly reformed man.

HOWEVER, the mind reader tells the panel that the man is lying. He's only trying to curry sympathy in order to get out of jail.

The third man also professes to be deeply sorry for his actions. And says much the same as the second man, that he is reformed and will never commit his crime again. He will be an upright citizen.

The mind reader deems that this man is telling the truth. He is deeply repentant and has been reformed.

THe last man also is repentant for his actions, deeply sorry. Yet he says for such a horrendous crime, he deserves to stay in jail longer. He should not be released.

The mind reader acknowledges the truthfulness of the man's statement. He is reformed and will never commit the crime again. Yet his guilt over his last indiscretion makes him think he still needs punishment.

----------------------------------------------

So who would you release? The first man? The second? Third? Fourth? All of them? None of them?

I personally would release the last two men. They are genuinely repentant. And because of the mind reader, we can say with 100% certainty that they are sorry and will not do it again.

The first two, I would not release. They are still a danger to society. Yet even if they were not a danger, they are not in any way sorry for their actions.

So, moving on to the actual point of this post. I'm sure it's obvious, but God (I am speaking of the Christian God) has his own mind reader machine. It is infallible. It cannot be tricked or coerced. A completely forgiving God can forgive completely. But should forgiveness be given to those that aren't sorry? Does a completely forgiving God mean pardoning everyone, regardless of what they have done, whether they are sorry, and whether they will commit the acts again?

What about Justice? Surely Justice must exist, otherwise there is anarchy. Is a God of infinite Forgiveness and a God of infinite Justice compatible? I think they are, but what are your thoughts?

Discuss

Regards, PA

I'll go with the law, rather then emotion. Punishment should fit the crime.

If he isn't sorry, and served his time... he still served his time.



Oh, man... after my cousin and I watched Constantine we stayed up half the freakin night fighting of this 'loophole'.

All you need to do, is just ask God for forgiveness and you will forgiven, no matter what you did and be accepted into his light. In asking for forgiveness then, you cannot lie as it would be a sin to lie, so if you just simply ask for forgiveness for your sins, you're in the clear. But if you say you are truely sorry for your sins and ask to be forgiven BUT not really sorry, you are going to get smited by the big guy.

Nice topic! I must say, I agree with you the first two men are both psychotics, with no real sense of remorse, as such are a serious threat to others..they stay put. the third man, no problem, he's sorry, he's truthful, he wants out, that shows that he feels he can make a difference in life, and continue to make amends in the outside world. I say, let him go, and nice job! however, the fourth and final man, the one who insists on remaining in prison, he is truly a puzzeling one...at first glance, one says, he is reformed, it is unjust to keep him in there, yet upon a second glance, I find that he would be much better placed into a psychiatric hospital, as if released, he would most likely be so overcome with guilt and remorse, he could be a danger to himself. in said hospital, he would still be in custody, so his mind would be at rest, and he could serve a purpose, contributing minorly to society while not harming himself.
again, all that stuff is just my two cents.

ahh, but thanks to a well worded scenario by PA, the gentlemen are up for parole, and have yet to serve all their time, hence the ability to keep them incarcerated. and if further evidence emerges against them, ie some undiagnosed psychopathy, only visible after conviction, I'd go to trial again, and convict them as dangerous offenders...just my two cents though!

there are two separate things here.

first, a man can only be found guilty or innocent for anything he does by himself.
what other men, or other entities think and say are irrelevent unless they manage to make the man succumb to their will.
But what of a man of weak will?
Does his reliance on others make him more or less?

When a man is less, he needs the other man or god to pass judgement,
and as such is a victem of their whims.
When a man becomes enlightened, he will pas his own judegment,
and as such he is the god!

So the enlightened man will either release or imprison himself.
And the unenlightened will seek to find what he is through others.

Good post Glacies. The last guy is indeed a puzzle. Originally while writing out the original post I only had two guys - the repentent and unrepentent. I thought it was a little dualistic however, so I added a third in to say he said he was repentent but wasn't. Then as a curve ball I threw the last fellow.

You make a good point. Psychiatric help might be needed for this person. I hadn't thought about that one.

Thanks for the input

Regards, PA

Alright, just ignore the first half of my post then.

Will do!

Interesting post but in the same measure can we really compare the judgement of men to the judgement of God through Christianity as you spoke of?

The judgement of man as in regards to crime in judgement and punishment not based on remorse soley but based on the suffering they have caused others and based on making sure they don't do it again.

The judgement of a Christian God is based upon believing and not where your heart is at.
As it is taught; it doesn't matter where your heart is at or how much remorse you have you cannot be forgiven if you don't believe.

But likewise, if you aren't repentent, not sorry for your actions and willing to make a complete 180 degree turn and stop doing those things, then you are not truly repentent and not saved. Repentence is a key part of salvation. Not just belief

Regards, PA

repent!

repent!

repent, yea sinners!

helll-a-lu-ya!

hypocrits!

Immature?

yes,

the religions of separation,

that teach of the god above,

and you below,

of him setting the rules,

for you to follow,

are immature.

and stunted,

and something even more,

but you are a clever fellow,

my transparent friend,

so the answer i would guess,

is within your hand.

What is up with your new style of posting?

I'll call it line madness. >.> And odd it is.

IMO:

You're confusing the real, current and only justifiable reasons for a legal system.

"Punishments" are applied to ensure that the offender does not repeat the offense. No other reason. Any other reason implies a universal set of morals, which we do not have and could never agree on.

The system God uses is very different, and is based on the real universal moral system reliant on absolute knowledge. Comparison between the two is comparing apples to oranges. Although they both make good juice.

Now you've gotten me thirsty.

Ditto. How about lemonade?

Excellent point....remids me of my debate...sigh


You said it Hyper - Hypocrites indeed