Repentance

[Marcus Aurelius]

Greetings Liquid Gardens!

So there's no reason to think any possible god is actually evil, or good for that matter; whatever it appears to be to us non-omniscient creatures, it might actually be the opposite. The inscrutability of God and therefore absolute morality works both ways.

Not necessarily. See the concept of God you are talking about here seems to be more of the deistic notion of God; that God is wholly other and completely unknowable. The watchmaker God.

But the God I am talking about, and indeed, it would appear everyone on this thread is debating about: is a personal God. You're right, I wouldn't know these things were it not for what we believe to be special and general revelation. We believe that God has revealed things to us, that God has communicated things to us.

Something that was communicated to us through what we call special revelation, like "the Law is written on the human heart" is in turn demonstrated by general revelation in that people do seem to have an innate sense of right and wrong in the form of our conscience, which, as I said previously comes from being made in the Image of God. Though imperfect, we are God's reflection in creation.

If you want to say that to the atheist it's an issue that there are no moral absolutes I can just say that to you even though you believe there are moral absolutes you can't really have much reasonable assurance that you've ascertained them correctly. Who are we to presuppose that God would share with us these moral absolutes accurately, and who are we to presuppose that God cannot have unjustifiable reasons for his actions?

Well, I do concede to the first part of your statement because I do not believe that I am a morally perfect human being and because, yes, I am fallible and even my own apprehension of morality is subjective. Thus, yes, in a sense we are both standing on sand. I was not really trying to deny that, or to place myself on any kind of pedestal as a 'moral authority'. However, this does not refute that there is an objective morality, in spite of my apprehension of it or my ability or inability to follow it correctly. But again; I do believe we have at least a partial understanding of its reality in the form of our own conscience. In addition, I believe what is objectively real has been revealed to us subjectively (as I mentioned above) so it is not like we are operating without an internal GPS. Thus, I think God has communicated these things accurately both to us and THROUGH us, even if we screw it up along the way.

As to the last portion of your post, if you ask me, the deistic impersonal God would be even harder to explain than the personal one. The obvious question would be: why create at all? If God could act 'unjustifiably', or if God was somehow malevolent as this seems to imply...why not wipe us out altogether? What need would this God have of us? It would appear, because you and I are here and having this conversation....that if a God exists, this God must be acting within some sort of self-imposed restraints or limitations.

Finally, I don't see why it would be so difficult to think that God would share these things with us if such a being does in fact exist. If God is personal which I believe, our perception of morality reflects a divine reality; thus just as you would try to teach your child not to steal, why wouldn't God teach His 'offspring' or creation? Indeed, because I believe you are the image of God, I believe this is why you would teach your child such values.

Yes, you can say that you have faith in God and have personal evidence that he's actually perfectly good and loving to support your understanding of the specifics of God's absolute morality, which of course isn't a very strong argument,

You are putting words in my mouth. When have I ever appealed to that?

But since we are on the subject, it is only a weak argument if it isn't true; which you can't demonstrate, just as I can't demonstrate that it is true to you. Yes, I believe it is possible to believe in God apart from reason and evidence because I believe the Holy Spirit does reveal truth to us; but unlike certain apologists you will rarely, if ever, find me resorting to such tactics because of the difficulty it naturally presents.

and I can likewise appeal to what 'justice' means here and now in my society to most people and myself and derive a 'morality' that is congruent with it.

And someone else can have a completely different conception of what justice means here and now in a different society and derive a 'morality' that totally contradicts yours and might even appall you; but their view is just as valid and 'right' as yours. And in the end, it doesn't matter anyway because the concept of morality itself is meaningless; again it is nothing more than a social construct; something adapted arbitrarily to help us survive.

Edited June 21, 2014 by Marcus Aurelius

[+Liquid Gardens]

See the concept of God you are talking about here seems to be more of the deistic notion of God; that God is wholly other and completely unknowable. The watchmaker God.

That wasn't my intent, I'm really just appealing to the fact that you don't know how well you really know god's character and whether any particular thing god does is moral. If we're going to provide as an answer to God's questionable behavior that maybe to an omniscient being it is moral and good, we can't say because we're not omniscient, then you have established some amount of his unknowability. I'm just pointing out then that I don't really see much justification for being narrow with the inscrutability argument.

You're right, I wouldn't know these things were it not for what we believe to be special and general revelation. We believe that God has revealed things to us, that God has communicated things to us.

Understood, but we know that believers are not perfect in identifying and/or translating things God have communicated to them. Believers arrive at contradictory conclusions, thus either God reveals/communicates with people and they misunderstand the message, or some people believe God has communicated something to them that he hasn't.

Thus, yes, in a sense we are both standing on sand. I was not really trying to deny that, or to place myself on any kind of pedestal as a 'moral authority'. However, this does not refute that there is an objective morality, in spite of my apprehension of it or my ability or inability to follow it correctly.

But depending how sandy it is it does help to refute the idea that you can ascertain that God is just, unless we untether that word from human meanings and just go with what God does and wants is just by definition. When we say that God takes just actions such as (to use a limited example, I don't think what he fully does here is 'just') banishing Adam and Eve from Eden for disobeying him, it's 'just' for the most part because it jibes with what we understand as justice in this reality; people who do bad things or break the law require some type of punishment/correction, that is what 'justice' demands to an extent, it aligns well with other situations we encounter on earth with our legal system for example. But when faced with condemning non-believers simply for not believing, to most people an action that for almost all scenarios in this reality, imagined and historical, is incredibly unjust, the appeal is made to God's unknowability and that what appears to be unjust to us may not be. Then it seems we should follow all the way through with this argument: if you can't identify unjust actions by God when they coincide with how we'd define 'unjust' on earth, then likewise you can't reliably identify just actions by God either.

To put it another way, what is the purpose of noting that the idea of an objective morality has not been refuted? If we agree that you and I and no human I'd guess can fully understand it correctly, of what use is 'objective morality'? You can do your best to somehow find some verification that what you believe is moral is actually in alignment with objectively morality, and I can continue to evaluate and reevaluate how actions fit in with the definition of morality as we generally use it in language and neither is better than the other. I can change my mind on something be moral or immoral based on my fluid and arbitrary standards, and you can change your mind based on thinking you've now improved your understanding of absolute morality.

As to the last portion of your post, if you ask me, the deistic impersonal God would be even harder to explain than the personal one. The obvious question would be: why create at all? If God could act 'unjustifiably', or if God was somehow malevolent as this seems to imply...why not wipe us out altogether? What need would this God have of us? It would appear, because you and I are here and having this conversation....that if a God exists, this God must be acting within some sort of self-imposed restraints or limitations.

Or we're just not as special to him as we imagine, maybe the whales are his chosen and we're just one of all the 'other creatures' he also loves. Again I wasn't referring to a purely deistic God; there's no requirement that a personal god be just or good or benevolent. If we're going to start guessing how an evil god would act towards us, we can just push that right back to why does a perfect being require or desire any other beings at all; why not wipe us out altogether has a question before it, why create us at all?

Finally, I don't see why it would be so difficult to think that God would share these things with us if such a being does in fact exist.

It's not that it's difficult, it's that I see no basis for expecting it; why not share those things with the ants, maybe he actually has.

You are putting words in my mouth. When have I ever appealed to that?

My apologies my friend, definitely not what I intended, my only point in that was to pre-answer an argument you could have replied with to what I said, it's only purpose to show that it is as sandy as how you seem to view the foundation of a non-objective-morality. When I asked who are we to presuppose that God would share his absolute morality or always be just, I thought a possible response could be something along the lines of, 'but I have reasons for believing God exists and who he says he is', which I don't dispute. I believe you do have reason and some evidence, but I'm of the opinion that no one can get to the specific conclusion that the Christian God exists without either personal experience and/or faith. There is a lot of evidence that all that taken together as an argument is not that strong, both because on its own it's failed to convince the majority of people and that other religions use nearly the exact same argument to arrive at their different god. It was not to imply that you'd pull these out as arguments, I agree there is difficulty in trying to address them, but always feel free to mention them if they are truly relevant; I'm likely not going to agree with the justification for whatever conclusion is supported by them, but I'd rather know how the justification for your specific beliefs are to be approached than not.

But since we are on the subject, it is only a weak argument if it isn't true; which you can't demonstrate, just as I can't demonstrate that it is true to you.

Technically I think it's still a weak argument, it doesn't become strong if God turns out to exist. If you pass a guy on the street raving about how Pazuzu exists and he believes it solely because he had a dream about Pazuzu last night it's a weak argument for this existence; if Pazuzu then materializes it doesn't make his argument strong, the strong argument is his materialization.

And someone else can have a completely different conception of what justice means here and now in a different society and derive a 'morality' that totally contradicts yours and might even appall you; but their view is just as valid and 'right' as yours. And in the end, it doesn't matter anyway because the concept of morality itself is meaningless; again it is nothing more than a social construct; something adapted arbitrarily to help us survive.

Sure, I agree with that to an extent, but at some point we start butting against semantics. There are non-theist philosophical arguments for morality, there is content in the definition of morality; a sane someone just killing a child for literally no reason except their own desire is never moral, without violating the meaning of the word 'morality'. Yes if there is an absolute morality that I can't comprehend this may have been 'moral', but by the definition of 'moral' a reason is required for harming someone, which I stated there was literally none of, and doing it just for someone's desire does not fit well with the definition of 'justice'.

I guess maybe what I'm ultimately getting at, and you may not even be arguing, is that the apparent fact that morality is subjective is not really a problem, the other alternative we're discussing isn't superior as far as it's ability to result in more moral acts.

[Leonardo]

And yet if there are no moral absolutes, then the whole idea of justice is an arbitrary concept anyway. Who is to say our idea of justice is correct?

And if an omnipotent, omniscient deity did exist wouldn't such a deity have a greater understanding of what is just and what isn't? Such a being would hypothetically know us better than we know ourselves; so while it may appear to our own subjective understanding that such a judgment is 'unjust'...this doesn't actually mean that it IS unjust. Who are we to presuppose that God cannot have any justifiable reason for performing such a course of action?

But that is just one way of looking at the problem. Leonardo, what I'd like to do here is just share my own personal opinion with you as a Christian and a theist. While I could continue arguing in the same vein as above; I do understand what you mean with this. My thought is that while certain fundamentalists may hold to the view you and others espouse, this is by no means a consensus within the Christian community. To say that it is, to say that we 'all' feel that way...is arguing against a straw-man.

If I was arguing that the majority of Christians believe the view I highlight in my posts I would be arguing a strawman, I agree - but I am not arguing that. What I am arguing is that this is the view the biblical scripture (allegedly the very word of God) itself promotes.

As to whether the majority of Christians are right to disregard this in favour of a more 'inclusive' view on God's justice, I'll just refer you back to your argument regarding God's understanding of that concept and 'moral absolutes'.

But the killer has chosen not to operate within those confines. He simply does not care about that code of ethics imposed upon him by society; and if there are no REAL moral absolutes, why should he? Does evil really even exist?

If the killer lives in the society he/she commits his/her crimes within, and if he/she has chosen to accept the benefits that society provides, then that society is within it's rights to administer justice. If the killer chooses to be arrested and tried, for example, rather than simply hunted and killed like an animal. So, we see the killer does care about the code of ethics imposed on it's members by that society - but only when it suits his/her selfish purpose. Thus the authority of that society to administer justice on that killer has been established.

As for the existence of evil - that is another, and very lengthy, debate all in itself.

Edited June 22, 2014 by Leonardo

[White Crane Feather]

If I remember correctly dalmer was an abused sociopath. A sociopath is born that way, then abused as a child. In a deterministic view of humanity why should he be punished?

[Leonardo]

If I remember correctly dalmer was an abused sociopath. A sociopath is born that way, then abused as a child. In a deterministic view of humanity why should he be punished?

Regardless whether this is true - and it is not, sociopathy can develop as a reaction to perceived 'injustice' - our social and legal framework does not incorporate the view that everything we are is congenital, that we are 'preprogrammed'.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Liquid Gardens, I want to thank you for getting yet another interesting conversation underway. I liked reading your post; once again it shows such a depth and range of thought that when I first read it last night, I actually had to step away to ponder how to even respond to some of your points. There was some really challenging stuff in there, and I very much appreciate that. Someone who pushes the boundaries of my own thought is a welcome friend. I hope my responses will do your post justice.

I'm really just appealing to the fact that you don't know how well you really know god's character and whether any particular thing god does is moral.

I have a couple thoughts on this. First, this is why I mentioned the deist kind of God. I have to default back to that simply because, as a Christian, I cannot accept the above. You see, as a Christian, I believe God by His very nature is good and that He has revealed that nature to us, though not in totality, through general and special revelation as noted previously. I believe that God has spoken to us, revealing something of His character. He is not only good, He is goodness itself. To quote Saint Thomas Aquinas:

"To be good belongs pre-eminently to God. For a thing is good according to its desirableness. Now everything seeks after its own perfection; and the perfection and form of an effect consist in a certain likeness to the agent, since every agent makes its like; and hence the agent itself is desirable and has the nature of good. For the very thing which is desirable in it is the participation of its likeness. Therefore, since God is the first effective cause of all things, it is manifest that the aspect of good and of desirableness belong to Him; and hence Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) attributes good to God as to the first efficient cause, saying that, God is called good "as by Whom all things subsist."

"God is the supreme good simply, and not only as existing in any genus or order of things. For good is attributed to God, as was said in the preceding article, inasmuch as all desired perfections flow from Him as from the first cause. They do not, however, flow from Him as from a univocal agent, as shown above (Question 4, Article 2); but as from an agent which does not agree with its effects either in species or genus. Now the likeness of an effect in the univocal cause is found uniformly; but in the equivocal cause it is found more excellently, as, heat is in the sun more excellently than it is in fire. Therefore as good is in God as in the first, but not the univocal, cause of all things, it must be in Him in a most excellent way; and therefore He is called the supreme good."

Second, I must argue the goodness of God on another front. You may object to this line of argument, naturally; but in my position I cannot help it. I've often argued for theism in general; I've defended belief systems such as Islam countless times on here and in real life; BUT I AM a Christian. While in philosophical discussions like this, as you may have noticed, I tend to speak of God in more inclusive terms. I do this because I like it when virtually any theist can relate to my arguments, whether they are a Hindu or a Muslim. But in this case, I must appeal specifically to my own faith of Christianity. In a sense, you a right; if God is invisible, then how can I know He is a just and moral being? Even someone like Aquinas who provides excellent arguments in the same vein as Aristotle, they are at best incomplete as they stand on their own. But I do not believe God is invisible, see? God has made Himself visible in Jesus Christ, who is the culmination of ALL revelation. He is God in the flesh, God come down, God in space and time; through His invasion of human history. I know that God is good because of Jesus Christ. It is by His actions ultimately that God can be demonstrated to be good. The will of God is made manifest through Him, as is our instruction manual for being just and good ourselves; to 'take up the Cross and follow Him' as it were. He demonstrates the pattern to be good, even in our own subjective realm. The Sermon on the Mount, for example, is reflective of what is written on our hearts.

Understood, but we know that believers are not perfect in identifying and/or translating things God have communicated to them. Believers arrive at contradictory conclusions, thus either God reveals/communicates with people and they misunderstand the message, or some people believe God has communicated something to them that he hasn't.

I actually agree with you here, at least to a point. I could go along the traditional apologetical line of argument with this, and say that we have more ancient copies of the NT than most other historical documents, etc., etc; but I would rather take an unorthodox approach. The WORST that this does, Liquid Gardens, is call into question Biblical inerrancy. Believe it or not, as a Christian, I am actually fine with that...if that is in fact the case. This would go back to some of our previous debates and discussions. Perhaps the Israelites got it wrong; thinking that God wanted them to wipe out every last Canaanite, when He wanted no such thing; for example. Similarly, perhaps we get it wrong when we say the earth was made in 7 literal days; perhaps that is metaphoric and according to God's timetable creation meant millions of years. But even if the Bible is not inerrant, again, our revelation ultimately is not a book...but a person. Christ. I've often said that revelation is God's "baby-talk" to us. I don't think we get everything right. However, the core of our faith rests upon Jesus Christ, so even if the Bible does contain some mistakes, or we have made some mistakes in speaking about it; I believe that one can still come to a relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

But when faced with condemning non-believers simply for not believing, to most people an action that for almost all scenarios in this reality, imagined and historical, is incredibly unjust, the appeal is made to God's unknowability and that what appears to be unjust to us may not be.

I certainly see your point here, but as I've argued on this forum multiple times; we don't know to any degree of certainty if that is even the case. You may want to check out my post #48 on here, when I addressed this very valid question to Leonardo.

Do you mind if I interject something personally with you? It's interesting that as I defend God and theistic belief in general on these forums; I've argued, I think, more about the concept of hell and the state of unbelievers more than anything else since I've been back on here after my 3 year hiatus. Oh sure, I've debated whether God exists, whether Jesus is who He says He is....but I've written more material on hell and non-believers than anything else. I've got to ask my friend, just as a personal opinion: why are non-believers or skeptics so concerned about hell? If you don't believe that it exists, why worry about it? I cannot help but think that in some cases, this is just a straw-man argument used to try to discredit religious belief or theism in general: a just God would not condemn non-believers, therefore God is not just or there is no God.

But the whole point is that IF hell is real, one ends up there because one desires to be there. Hell should not be seen as a place of eternal fire; this is a product of the Church of the Middle Ages that used such concepts as a means of subjugation. Hell should instead be looked at like this: if God is the source of all life; then movement towards God through faith or good deeds is movement towards life, or heaven. Similarly, if God is the source of all life, then movement away from god through unbelief or misdeeds is movement towards death, or non-being. As C.S. Lewis once argued, the people that are in hell would not be crying "Let me out!!" they would be crying "Let me in!!" This concept, that the soul attains what it desires...absolutely...is contained in nearly every major religion. I have no reason to think that non-believers will be roasting in burning cauldrons with pitchforks jammed in their sides. But if one believes, if one desires death and non-being; then this is what they will attain. Thus, to the atheist who says "there is no God" then, there is no God.

And if one is so concerned about hell, then why not take a Pascal's Wager sort of faith? Why not live as though God exists?

Then it seems we should follow all the way through with this argument: if you can't identify unjust actions by God when they coincide with how we'd define 'unjust' on earth, then likewise you can't reliably identify just actions by God either.

Noted. But I don't believe God acts unjustly. Indeed, I don't believe we would have any concept of what is just or unjust, were it not for God.

You can do your best to somehow find some verification that what you believe is moral is actually in alignment with objectively morality, and I can continue to evaluate and reevaluate how actions fit in with the definition of morality as we generally use it in language and neither is better than the other. I can change my mind on something be moral or immoral based on my fluid and arbitrary standards, and you can change your mind based on thinking you've now improved your understanding of absolute morality.

That is a very good point, and I'm not going to even try to refute it. Indeed, I find myself in agreement with it. My only point would perhaps be an addition: that we are either moving towards or away from what is the objective morality by our actions.

You see, I happen to agree with the philosopher Kant in this case. I believe that morality requires a perfect ideal, and requires that this ideal be actual and real, somewhere. It has to be grounded on something, and I believe it is grounded upon God.

But inasmuch as I as a theist and you as a non-theist are striving towards the "good", I believe that you and I could continue this conversation in heaven tomorrow were we to meet our ends today. As noted, I reject the fundamentalist notions of hell; and I am certainly not alone in this category.

Or we're just not as special to him as we imagine, maybe the whales are his chosen and we're just one of all the 'other creatures' he also loves. Again I wasn't referring to a purely deistic God; there's no requirement that a personal god be just or good or benevolent. If we're going to start guessing how an evil god would act towards us, we can just push that right back to why does a perfect being require or desire any other beings at all; why not wipe us out altogether has a question before it, why create us at all?

Perhaps you missed it in my previous post, but I asked the same question as you. Why create? Indeed, I think the fact that we exist; that you and I have an internal wiring that seems to suggest what is "right" and what is "wrong" demonstrates that our creator is good, and that He does favor us above the whales and the ants because He has given us a freedom of will, a rational mind and a conscience. I don't believe that two ants would be having this kind of conversation as you and I are having, therefore I once again default to the fact that we are made in His likeness of being.

But this is not to say that the rest of creation is of no value. Far from it. While this is another discussion entirely, I believe that all of creation will be redeemed and restored.

'but I have reasons for believing God exists and who he says he is', which I don't dispute. I believe you do have reason and some evidence, but I'm of the opinion that no one can get to the specific conclusion that the Christian God exists without either personal experience and/or faith.

I appreciate that, truly. I've engaged in debates with so many atheists both in real life and on forums like this where they are dripping with such hostility and venom that...were I to even make a statement like that, they would say that I am 'mad' and should be locked up, or that I need psychological help. So forgive me for raising a 'red flag' that was truly a 'false flag'. I should have known better; you have never been anything but tactful and respectful even when you disagree, so forgive me for jumping to conclusions. It's just that when you get called a 'psychopath' for your beliefs so many times, you begin to (falsely) assume that every skeptic is going to level that at you. So just as you 'anticipated' that might be my line of argument, I falsely 'anticipated' the 'psychopath' line of argument might be yours.

It's ironic because these same people accuse theists of being harsh, judgmental and bigoted; when some of these atheists I've talked to are the most harsh, judgmental and bigoted people I've ever encountered. I wish more skeptics would take your approach, or even someone like Richard Dawkins who admittedly is almost always respectful towards the theists he debates. I actually LIKE listening to him, believe it or not.

But more to your point: I do believe there is truth to what you say, that we can't come to the Christian God without personal experience and/or faith. Just as a matter of explanation to further our conversation, though, do you know why we believe this to be the case? You see, I know that in my previous discussions, many of my atheist and agnostic friends in real life think that I have made an existential leap in the dark. I have come to 'faith' in absence of reason or evidence. Yet, I would counter and say that my faith and belief, IS the internal evidence, see? As a Christian and a theist it is my belief that God seeks us; we do not seek God. Thus I have 'experiences' in my life that point me towards God, or towards belief in Him. John Wesley called this "Prevenient Grace". The Holy Spirit works in me, stirs me, prior to any human decision. Now my skeptical friends would come back and say "well why did He do that to you and not to me?" I believe that He does it for ALL of us; there are no exceptions. God speaks to us all, at some point or other; but sometimes we miss His voice. According to the Abrahamic tradition, we have strayed from God, deviated from our original intention. Thus, it's like having a bad cell phone connection; like when you're in a remote area and you're roaming. God tries to call you, but either the phone doesn't ring because your signal is too weak or the call drops when you pick it up. The din of our daily lives distracts us from the reality of God and this internal witness of the Holy Spirit. God has, or will at some point...try to 'call' you and everyone else.

Thus, I don't see faith as a blind leap in the dark. The only reason I have faith is because of the prior actions of God.

There is a lot of evidence that all that taken together as an argument is not that strong, both because on its own it's failed to convince the majority of people and that other religions use nearly the exact same argument to arrive at their different god.

But we miss it because we are wired to unbelief, we are always 'data roaming', see? Just my two cents. As to other religions; this is where I radically part ways with other Christian apologists and thinkers. I believe their revelations are accurate, and that it's from the same God; only in a different form. I believe that God is simply too big to contain in a box and that He has revealed Himself in different ways and times to different cultures and peoples. Yes, I believe that Jesus Christ is the FULLNESS of revelation, which is why I'm Christian, and not say a Hindu. But inasmuch as truth comes from God and all religions possess truth, then all religions possess God to some capacity. Thus, I believe a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim or a Jew will be in 'heaven' just as likely as I am. This is why I study comparative religion and work in the interfaith field; because I believe the various religions have much common ground and that we should be working together for the greater good of humanity because all of us possess some form of divine truth. I COMPLETELY disagree with someone like William Lane Craig who says their revelation or witness is somehow 'false.' While I admit to liking a lot of his material; he is a very intelligent guy and a good Christian writer; I respect and admire his work....but I disagree with his conclusions on this matter. In fact, it sort of irritates me that his well known Kalaam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God, the thing that put him on the map; is actually borrowed from Islamic sources...and then he turns around and says that they are 'wrong.' It's hypocritical of him. I know he responds to letters and emails, I've actually debated about writing him and challenging him on the issue LOL.

In short, a Muslim's experiences of God, I feel, are just as genuine as my own.

I agree there is difficulty in trying to address them, but always feel free to mention them if they are truly relevant; I'm likely not going to agree with the justification for whatever conclusion is supported by them, but I'd rather know how the justification for your specific beliefs are to be approached than not.

Again, I really appreciate that; that you want to LEARN about my beliefs and why I have them. I feel the same way about you; and as I've said before this is why I really like our debates and discussions...I think we learn from each other!

I guess maybe what I'm ultimately getting at, and you may not even be arguing, is that the apparent fact that morality is subjective is not really a problem, the other alternative we're discussing isn't superior as far as it's ability to result in more moral acts.

Perhaps not, but it objectively grounds them; it is objectively REAL and I think that this matters, as noted above with reference to Kant. But think about it like this: if morality is objectively real; if it exists whether you or I follow it or not, whether you or I even exist or not; it also matters because it also demonstrates that our actions MEAN something; the consequences of my actions are objectively real as morality itself. Take the Buddhist philosophy regarding Karma, for instance. If someone kills that child for no reason at all, regardless of whether or not this person is caught and punished in a court of law; his heinous deed will have an objectively real consequence. As the Buddha himself said, "we are the heirs of our own actions." This killer may delude himself into thinking he has gotten away with what he is done; but if objective morality is real and his actions matter; he will face real consequences of his actions. Remember how I said earlier how our actions move us closer towards "life" or "heaven" or "death" and "hell"; by his actions he has moved towards "death" and "hell."

The Samyutta Nikaya states:

"According to the seed that’s sown,

So is the fruit you reap there from,

Doer of good will gather good,

Doer of evil, evil reaps,

Down is the seed and thou shalt taste

The fruit thereof."

[~TheBigK~]

If I remember correctly dalmer was an abused sociopath. A sociopath is born that way, then abused as a child. In a deterministic view of humanity why should he be punished?

It's still very much up for debate on whether or not sociopaths are born or made, but that's a whole other subject for discussing.

Regardless he's actually one of the few serial killers who wasn't really abused that anyone knows of. From what we know his parents were a bit absent and they got into arguments, but there was no direct abuse. In an

Dahmer actually said "I just get angry with other people who think they have a right to somehow try to blame my parents for what happened." He was quiet in school but never really bullied and was actually looked up to by some kids. He stated several times that he alone was responsible for what happened and wouldn't make excuses. Also that he was fully aware what he did was wrong. That's where the punishment should come in, in my opinion. Yes, there was something wrong with him mentally but even if he was a sociopath he knew what he was doing and he planned it extensively. He was a danger to society and needed to be separated from it, at least by the standards of our legal systems "justice."

As far as "justice" or "punishment" goes in the area of a religious afterlife, that's a different issue. Because he took complete responsibility and acknowledged that what he did was wrong, did he deserve forgiveness from us or God? And do others like him?

[Davros of Skaro]

I invoke the Goddess Clementia to forgive my Sins.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementia

[Omnaka]

Repentance for deeds done wrong or that hurt others comes in many forms. Doing ones best to make ammends to someone I have hurt, may help them. And if it helps them, it helps me. Living with regret sucks and causes cancer imo.

Gotta get rid of it, one way or another. I'm for asking forgiveness from the brother first before using him as a springboard to ask god for forgiveness.

[Omnaka]

You mean contradicting what you believe?

Because it states fairly categorically that one has to accept Christ, and Christ's sacrifice, to be admitted into the presence of God. That's not an interpretation, but a statement of fact in accordance with the words used. If a person does not accept Christ and his sacrifice, or is incapable of accepting it, then there can be no "heavenly reward" for that person - regardless their state of innocence or ignorance.

Jesus should not have said that, if he did. It's not true, as millions will attest.

I speak to Fathet all the time.

[libstaK]

But the whole point is that IF hell is real, one ends up there because one desires to be there. Hell should not be seen as a place of eternal fire; this is a product of the Church of the Middle Ages that used such concepts as a means of subjugation. Hell should instead be looked at like this: if God is the source of all life; then movement towards God through faith or good deeds is movement towards life, or heaven. Similarly, if God is the source of all life, then movement away from god through unbelief or misdeeds is movement towards death, or non-being. As C.S. Lewis once argued, the people that are in hell would not be crying "Let me out!!" they would be crying "Let me in!!" This concept, that the soul attains what it desires...absolutely...is contained in nearly every major religion. I have no reason to think that non-believers will be roasting in burning cauldrons with pitchforks jammed in their sides. But if one believes, if one desires death and non-being; then this is what they will attain. Thus, to the atheist who says "there is no God" then, there is no God.

.......................

.

......... As to other religions; this is where I radically part ways with other Christian apologists and thinkers. I believe their revelations are accurate, and that it's from the same God; only in a different form. I believe that God is simply too big to contain in a box and that He has revealed Himself in different ways and times to different cultures and peoples. Yes, I believe that Jesus Christ is the FULLNESS of revelation, which is why I'm Christian, and not say a Hindu. But inasmuch as truth comes from God and all religions possess truth, then all religions possess God to some capacity. Thus, I believe a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim or a Jew will be in 'heaven' just as likely as I am. This is why I study comparative religion and work in the interfaith field; because I believe the various religions have much common ground and that we should be working together for the greater good of humanity because all of us possess some form of divine truth.

Hi Marcus,

Apologies for editing your post .. it was quite long lol.

I just wanted to add something that popped up for me while I was reading the above passages, which I heartily agree with.

"In My Father's house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you."

I know this was in consolation to the apostles, but what he says makes perfect sense in it's broader context. There are MANY DWELLING PLACES, or in other versions, many rooms. Most telling of all - "if it were not so I would have told you". Why would it matter if there were many or just one? It can only be that each apostle and each soul by extension looks comparatively at the world and wonders "Am I worthy of Heaven, I am not like my brother" or "Are they worthy of heaven, they are not like me". Those questions are the centre of disquiet the world over and I see this addressed here, this universal disquiet over who is worthy and who is not.

I do believe a place is there for all, each according to his like and yes, we can find that our "like" would be that which others would consider hellish, yet it is the dwelling we choose.

I also like the movie, if you have not seen it, I would recommend it "What Dreams May Come", with Robin Williams, as it shows what our psychology can create for us and how we choose it in the afterlife because we cannot see anything beyond it - where our minds are is our reality and nothing else will be available to see outside of that until we change our minds.

Bless you friend

[Arbenol]

If I remember correctly dalmer was an abused sociopath. A sociopath is born that way, then abused as a child. In a deterministic view of humanity why should he be punished?

You could debate whether it's right to punish someone who can't be held completely accountable for their own behaviour.

What I think is less debatable is society's right to be protected from such individuals.

[libstaK]

You could debate whether it's right to punish someone who can't be held completely accountable for their own behaviour.

What I think is less debatable is society's right to be protected from such individuals.

Agreed, what we can judge and what is justice for secular society are not the same thing. It is entirely right to uphold the laws of society and incarcerate someone like Dahmer to keep others from harm. What is debatable is whether it is justice, or within the spirit of the law to then further execute these types.

[Arbenol]

Agreed, what we can judge and what is justice for secular society are not the same thing. It is entirely right to uphold the laws of society and incarcerate someone like Dahmer to keep others from harm. What is debatable is whether it is justice, or within the spirit of the law to then further execute these types.

I've long been uncomfortable with whole concept of punishment. It appears to be synonymous with revenge or retribution. I don't believe that these are concepts that should be features of a morally healthy society. They underpin the practice of capital punishment. I don't believe anybody should be the arbiter of whether another person lives or dies..

I understand the motivation. If someone harmed one of my loved ones, I would want them dead. But that wouldn't make me right.

However, I do believe that those individuals that have shown themselves to be a danger to society should be removed from that society. Permanently if need be. I have no problem with 'life meaning life'.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

I have yet to read all through the whole thread, I wanted to make a note of this particular post. And then take the time to respond to the thread with my spiritual, but non-christian thoughts.

And to those who ridicule this concept of repentance; I would counter and say what is so wrong with acknowledging fault within ourselves and sincerely desiring to change? Real or imagined, if such things produce results and real change, such efforts should be lauded. I think it's more dangerous when we are so egotistical that we cannot find fault within ourselves. For instance, how many relationships could be saved if we simply learned to say "I'm sorry" and actually mean it?

I don't think, saying you are sorry and mean it, is enough. If that is all that is done, I think. Basically, if someone is truly sorry, really means it, they wouldn't stop of just saying it. Especially, if their victim is scarred for it, or worse. I really don't think relationships can be mended, by the act of just being sorry. Some healing and really hard work on the party who did the hurting is what should be done.

So on the note of this, I don't agree with this. It could also be I'm also part Karmist, but I think Dahmer deserves hell, and Sagan deserves Heaven, even it he didn't believe in it in life. To me, belief is not a choice, it's an end result to what clues and experiences that are presented to you. If Dahmer is truly repentance and that he truly feel horrible about what he's done, he should feel that he should go to hell for what he has done.

The thing is, how do we know? Death is still the unknown, despite various witnesses's various and different accounts. Some can say one is in hell and one is in Heaven, but we still don't have proof. I have more my own personal proof, that both got what they deserve. (yes, I think Sagan is at peace, and Dahmer is not). How do we know for sure, that this not the case? There is no real proof.

[JJ50]

Jesus should not have said that, if he did. It's not true, as millions will attest.

I speak to Fathet all the time.

I suspect a lot of what Jesus is supposed to have said was put into his mouth by the gospel writers well after his death!

[Awake2Chaos]

EM I think the answer to your question here lays in God's definition of the word "eternity" I've seen God break up time in the Bible as periods of "everlastings" Psalm 90:2 Psalm 103:17) How can there be more than one everlasting?

"Everlasting to everlasting" clearly indicates there is more than one so an everlasting cannot truly be what we think it would be. Perhaps the same can be said for the word eternity. One everlasting = one eternity, afterwhich we get another shot.

I understand where you are coming from, but where we part ways....I don't reference the bible because I do not feel that it can really be taken in literal terms. But does it really benefit to disect what 'eternity' means? Isn't eternity...........eternity? Whether it's one or one hundred, the concept is still the same.

I just don't feel that if God exists that he'd (she/it) be so sadistic and unforgiving. And the concept of sin itself, is a self-supporting construct of Christianity. Yes, there are good deeds, and bad deeds, but the guilt associated with either comes from this concept of sin. Repent = redemption; does saying that you are sorry for something undo the damage?

[Omnaka]

I understand where you are coming from, but where we part ways....I don't reference the bible because I do not feel that it can really be taken in literal terms. But does it really benefit to disect what 'eternity' means? Isn't eternity...........eternity? Whether it's one or one hundred, the concept is still the same.

I just don't feel that if God exists that he'd (she/it) be so sadistic and unforgiving. And the concept of sin itself, is a self-supporting construct of Christianity. Yes, there are good deeds, and bad deeds, but the guilt associated with either comes from this concept of sin. Repent = redemption; does saying that you are sorry for something undo the damage?

The plate is an inanimate object that did not care before you broke it, if you broke it. Or after you broke it . Rendering apology mute.

Now your Mom, she's a diferent story try hiding the fact that you broke one of her good plates. If she finds out, she's gonna be mad. If you apologise for hurting her feelings by accident (breaking plate), or on purpose (trying to hide accident), it will make it easier on her, in turn make life better for you.

Moral- dont apologise to inanimate objects, Do apologise to Mom.

Makes her feel loved.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Omnaka

[Mr Walker]

Apologies if this has been discussed before but I couldn't find anything on it when I searched. Anyway, I recently witnessed a debate sparked by this image:

So basically it's saying that because serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer repented and asked for forgiveness, he's in heaven while Carl Sagan who is generally accepted as a good and incredibly influential person ended up in hell because he's an atheist.

There are a lot of issues I have with this but there was one comment in particular I found troubling, someone said "if there's hope that someone like Dahmer could receive pardoning from God then I'm glad because that means there's hope for me." To me that's essentially saying well hey if this horrible human being can get into heaven then I'm cool with that cause it means I can too, and that just seems like an awful reason to support such a belief. What is the point of listing off sins you should never commit, when you can just accept God and have them all washed away in the end? It also brings up the question how do we know a criminal is sincere and not just repenting to look good for the court/public? Does God know if the person has genuine remorse or desire to be good? Where is the line between blind faith and taking responsibility for your own actions? I think that forgiveness is generally a good thing in principal but in cases like this it just seems counterproductive and illogical.

All of that being said I know there are some religious people who don't support this and prefer to believe God would judge based on your character instead of whether or not you believe. Which I think is great. I guess I'm just curious to hear everyone's opinions on this especially if you're religious. If you are particularly religious are you comfortable with this concept and do you support it?

Just as a hypothetical; there are two important points. ONE If there was a heaven and I was in it, I would expect it to be filled with people who were "safe to be there" Ie that NOW they are good people. The point is not what they were like at some time in their life but how they are now. So, the worst person who really repents of their sins, and asks for forgiveness, and will never sin again, would be there and I would be happy to see them there. They are new people, and their punishment ceases with death of the old person . There is no point me hating Dahmer or being angry with him etc He is now not the human being he once was he is now just like me and everyone else in heaven. A good man who will not hurt anyone else Actually I would not be let into heaven, hypothetically, unless I could let go of my hate for Dahmer and forgive him, because if I could not do this, then I would not be safe to let into heaven.

Second; the existence of Heaven is an article of faith, as is god. It might be physically impossible for a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or of a heaven to access it. How would they find it, or see it, if their minds were closed to its presence? Many peole can't see god on earth. How then could they distinguish the presence of god in heaven, or indeed the very existence of heaven ?

Edited June 30, 2014 by Mr Walker

[Bluefinger]

Apologies if this has been discussed before but I couldn't find anything on it when I searched. Anyway, I recently witnessed a debate sparked by this image:

So basically it's saying that because serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer repented and asked for forgiveness, he's in heaven while Carl Sagan who is generally accepted as a good and incredibly influential person ended up in hell because he's an atheist.

There are a lot of issues I have with this but there was one comment in particular I found troubling, someone said "if there's hope that someone like Dahmer could receive pardoning from God then I'm glad because that means there's hope for me." To me that's essentially saying well hey if this horrible human being can get into heaven then I'm cool with that cause it means I can too, and that just seems like an awful reason to support such a belief. What is the point of listing off sins you should never commit, when you can just accept God and have them all washed away in the end? It also brings up the question how do we know a criminal is sincere and not just repenting to look good for the court/public? Does God know if the person has genuine remorse or desire to be good? Where is the line between blind faith and taking responsibility for your own actions? I think that forgiveness is generally a good thing in principal but in cases like this it just seems counterproductive and illogical.

All of that being said I know there are some religious people who don't support this and prefer to believe God would judge based on your character instead of whether or not you believe. Which I think is great. I guess I'm just curious to hear everyone's opinions on this especially if you're religious. If you are particularly religious are you comfortable with this concept and do you support it?

I would not be quick to assume that the person that runs to Jesus is not regretfull for the things he/she has done. Just because Dahmer did disgusting and terrible things, it does not mean he was not sincerely sorry for what he had done after the fact.

Christianity reaches out for the lost without condoning their behavior. But it is chiefly focused on redeeming the lost...something many in this forum don't seem to care about.

[Omnaka]

I would not be quick to assume that the person that runs to Jesus is not regretfull for the things he/she has done. Just because Dahmer did disgusting and terrible things, it does not mean he was not sincerely sorry for what he had done after the fact.

Christianity reaches out for the lost without condoning their behavior. But it is chiefly focused on redeeming the lost...something many in this forum don't seem to care about.

I get it. Thank you bro.

[danielost]

Serial killers cannot be forgiven. Carl Saigon on the other hand won't end up in hell just because he is an atheist. Those who think other wise shodn't past judgement. With that in mind I should say the killers will end up in hell as long as they know good from evil.

[Omnaka]

Serial killers cannot be forgiven. Carl Saigon on the other hand won't end up in hell just because he is an atheist. Those who think other wise shodn't past judgement. With that in mind I should say the killers will end up in hell as long as they know good from evil.

Unconditional love means just that. They were forgiven before they transgressed. Judge not.

[Bluefinger]

Serial killers cannot be forgiven. Carl Saigon on the other hand won't end up in hell just because he is an atheist. Those who think other wise shodn't past judgement. With that in mind I should say the killers will end up in hell as long as they know good from evil.

Daniel, there has got to be something wrong in the head of a man/woman to be a serial killer in the first place. That a person likes to kill and do other abominable things highlights the mental illness behind the person. Can you think of any serial killer that was right in the head?

I'd like to hold out hope for the least of people.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Bluefinger

[XenoFish]

The plate was a metaphor.

This makes me wonder what happened to all those lost souls that existed before Jesus decided to tread the earth? Billions upon billions of lives forgotten?

I really like this because to repent for the things you've done in the past starts with self-forgiveness.