Is Jeffrey Dahmer in heaven?
5,580 Views |
116 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by dermdoc
Jim Hogg is angry
Joined:
May 25, 2009
Posts:
7,588
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Heck, I dunno. I try to pray for those I consider evil (or possessed by evil), but fail at it often.
Glad it's above my pay grade, frankly.
Glad it's above my pay grade, frankly.
why do you care is he a friend of your's?
TrailerTrash said:
why do you care is he a friend of your's?
He was a vile and depraved human being, yet the precious blood of Christ was sufficient for his redemption. As wicked as he was, he seemingly made a genuine profession of faith.
TrailerTrash said:
why do you care is he a friend of your's?
God's mercy is greater than anyone's sin. For this we give him glory, honor, and praise. Sure JD would need to repent and accept God's grace. I have no way to know if he did or didn't, not my job to know. However I pray he found salvation, because then there could be hope for a sinner like me. That is why anyone should care.
Agree. Thanks be to God.Baptist Lives Matter said:TrailerTrash said:
why do you care is he a friend of your's?
He was a vile and depraved human being, yet the precious blood of Christ was sufficient for his redemption. As wicked as he was, he seemingly made a genuine profession of faith.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Perhaps equally as tricky as the Dahmer question is whether or not Ghandi is in heaven? One could argue he falls into the category of someone who did commit the unforgiveable sin.
Mocking the British?
I hope they both are saved. There's no "in heaven", though. We will die, we will be resurrected, and we will live on a renewed Earth.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
ramblin_ag02 said:
I hope they both are saved. There's no "in heaven", though. We will die, we will be resurrected, and we will live on a renewed Earth.
Exactly.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Although Ghandi outright rejected Christ as the Son of God, I wouldn't put it in the category of the unforgiveable sin which is generally viewed as apostacy. You've become a Christian, partake in its blessings, and then fall away and reject it. Ghandi never converted to Christianity although many tried.kurt vonnegut said:
Perhaps equally as tricky as the Dahmer question is whether or not Ghandi is in heaven? One could argue he falls into the category of someone who did commit the unforgiveable sin.
Heb. 6:4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.
So the guy who tortured people, killed them, and literally ate them is in heaven while his victims could be in hell and the guy who epitomized non-violence against injustice would also be in hell. Fascinating theology.
As long as Dahmer said the Sinner's Prayer he's assured of his salvation, amirite?
Sapper Redux said:
So the guy who tortured people, killed them, and literally ate them is in heaven while his victims could be in hell and the guy who epitomized non-violence against injustice would also be in hell. Fascinating theology.
That's a very bad take on ghandi, a devout Hindu who didn't give two craps about the untouchables and did nothing to help them. If you consider complete indifference to the poor and marginalized to be worthy of going to heaven then you should be easier in Christians and republicans on Texags since that's what you believe about them.
I was worried someone would poke holes in Ghandi's character. . . . for sake of discussion, Ghandi is just supposed to represent a very good person who was very well informed and educated on Christianity and its message, yet rejected its message.
kurt vonnegut said:
I was worried someone would poke holes in Ghandi's character. . . . for sake of discussion, Ghandi is just supposed to represent a very good person who was very well informed and educated on Christianity and its message, yet rejected its message.
Yeah, sorry, sapper's smugness was a little much to let go.
But this does speak to Christian theology: the best foil you have, the best 'good' person, really isn't a good person but at best an incomplete picture used as a mirror. When we fill it in we find out that there are many ways in which even they fall short. Indifference should surely count against someone's character as much as an explicit action they commit. The idea that he would like Christ while ignoring the Dalits is contradictory to Christ's message. Mother Teresa ministered to them as a follower of Christ while he didn't, even leaving her order to do so. He had far more influence and power to do so though.
Martin Q. Blank said:Although Ghandi outright rejected Christ as the Son of God, I wouldn't put it in the category of the unforgiveable sin which is generally viewed as apostacy. You've become a Christian, partake in its blessings, and then fall away and reject it. Ghandi never converted to Christianity although many tried.kurt vonnegut said:
Perhaps equally as tricky as the Dahmer question is whether or not Ghandi is in heaven? One could argue he falls into the category of someone who did commit the unforgiveable sin.
Heb. 6:4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.
Understood. . . and in a lot of ways, this seems fairly reasonable. At least it seems to me that w are setting up the ability to commit the unforgiveable sin to be predicated on exposure to an appropriate level of enlightenment. A person who has not been sufficiently enlightened cannot fully reject God because they could be considered ignorant of what they are 'rejecting'.
Do you think that some people are given sufficient enlightenment to commit the unforgiveable sin during life? And some people are not? Or would this be a post death sit down conference with God where he zaps you with full enlightenment and at that time a person could (now sufficiently enlightened) choose the unforgiveable sin of rejecting God?
I didn't say anything about their eternal state.Sapper Redux said:
So the guy who tortured people, killed them, and literally ate them is in heaven while his victims could be in hell and the guy who epitomized non-violence against injustice would also be in hell. Fascinating theology.
It can certainly happen in this life. Otherwise the threat of its consequences would be toothless.kurt vonnegut said:Martin Q. Blank said:Although Ghandi outright rejected Christ as the Son of God, I wouldn't put it in the category of the unforgiveable sin which is generally viewed as apostacy. You've become a Christian, partake in its blessings, and then fall away and reject it. Ghandi never converted to Christianity although many tried.kurt vonnegut said:
Perhaps equally as tricky as the Dahmer question is whether or not Ghandi is in heaven? One could argue he falls into the category of someone who did commit the unforgiveable sin.
Heb. 6:4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.
Understood. . . and in a lot of ways, this seems fairly reasonable. At least it seems to me that w are setting up the ability to commit the unforgiveable sin to be predicated on exposure to an appropriate level of enlightenment. A person who has not been sufficiently enlightened cannot fully reject God because they could be considered ignorant of what they are 'rejecting'.
Do you think that some people are given sufficient enlightenment to commit the unforgiveable sin during life? And some people are not? Or would this be a post death sit down conference with God where he zaps you with full enlightenment and at that time a person could (now sufficiently enlightened) choose the unforgiveable sin of rejecting God?
Well another example I thought of a lot as a Christian, from a close time period, was all of the Jews who were murdered in the holocaust. The thought of them going through hell on earth and then getting sent to the real hell for not accepting Jesus is too cruel of a thought to bear.kurt vonnegut said:
I was worried someone would poke holes in Ghandi's character. . . . for sake of discussion, Ghandi is just supposed to represent a very good person who was very well informed and educated on Christianity and its message, yet rejected its message.
AGC said:kurt vonnegut said:
I was worried someone would poke holes in Ghandi's character. . . . for sake of discussion, Ghandi is just supposed to represent a very good person who was very well informed and educated on Christianity and its message, yet rejected its message.
Yeah, sorry, sapper's smugness was a little much to let go.
But this does speak to Christian theology: the best foil you have, the best 'good' person, really isn't a good person but at best an incomplete picture used as a mirror. When we fill it in we find out that there are many ways in which even they fall short. Indifference should surely count against someone's character as much as an explicit action they commit. The idea that he would like Christ while ignoring the Dalits is contradictory to Christ's message. Mother Teresa ministered to them as a follower of Christ while he didn't, even leaving her order to do so. He had far more influence and power to do so though.
It definitely says something about Christian theology if you must assume people are terrible.
Sapper Redux said:AGC said:kurt vonnegut said:
I was worried someone would poke holes in Ghandi's character. . . . for sake of discussion, Ghandi is just supposed to represent a very good person who was very well informed and educated on Christianity and its message, yet rejected its message.
Yeah, sorry, sapper's smugness was a little much to let go.
But this does speak to Christian theology: the best foil you have, the best 'good' person, really isn't a good person but at best an incomplete picture used as a mirror. When we fill it in we find out that there are many ways in which even they fall short. Indifference should surely count against someone's character as much as an explicit action they commit. The idea that he would like Christ while ignoring the Dalits is contradictory to Christ's message. Mother Teresa ministered to them as a follower of Christ while he didn't, even leaving her order to do so. He had far more influence and power to do so though.
It definitely says something about Christian theology if you must assume people are terrible.
Do you think non-violence against the British outweighs neglect and complicity in systemic oppression and abuse? To the point that ghandi should be in heaven?
What do you call the temporary state of those deceased believers right now? To be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. As well as "Today you will be with me in paradise".ramblin_ag02 said:
I hope they both are saved. There's no "in heaven", though. We will die, we will be resurrected, and we will live on a renewed Earth.
AGC said:Sapper Redux said:AGC said:kurt vonnegut said:
I was worried someone would poke holes in Ghandi's character. . . . for sake of discussion, Ghandi is just supposed to represent a very good person who was very well informed and educated on Christianity and its message, yet rejected its message.
Yeah, sorry, sapper's smugness was a little much to let go.
But this does speak to Christian theology: the best foil you have, the best 'good' person, really isn't a good person but at best an incomplete picture used as a mirror. When we fill it in we find out that there are many ways in which even they fall short. Indifference should surely count against someone's character as much as an explicit action they commit. The idea that he would like Christ while ignoring the Dalits is contradictory to Christ's message. Mother Teresa ministered to them as a follower of Christ while he didn't, even leaving her order to do so. He had far more influence and power to do so though.
It definitely says something about Christian theology if you must assume people are terrible.
Do you think non-violence against the British outweighs neglect and complicity in systemic oppression and abuse? To the point that ghandi should be in heaven?
You're aware of what the British did to the Indian and Pakistani people?
Sapper Redux said:AGC said:kurt vonnegut said:
I was worried someone would poke holes in Ghandi's character. . . . for sake of discussion, Ghandi is just supposed to represent a very good person who was very well informed and educated on Christianity and its message, yet rejected its message.
Yeah, sorry, sapper's smugness was a little much to let go.
But this does speak to Christian theology: the best foil you have, the best 'good' person, really isn't a good person but at best an incomplete picture used as a mirror. When we fill it in we find out that there are many ways in which even they fall short. Indifference should surely count against someone's character as much as an explicit action they commit. The idea that he would like Christ while ignoring the Dalits is contradictory to Christ's message. Mother Teresa ministered to them as a follower of Christ while he didn't, even leaving her order to do so. He had far more influence and power to do so though.
It definitely says something about Christian theology if you must assume people are terrible.
Most every person (probably all) has vices and issues. A father who goes to work, loves his kids and wife may still have a drinking problem. A woman who loves her husband and kids may still have anger problems. We all fall short. You don't have to assume people are "terrible" to realize that they aren't who they can be. Most every person would tell you they know for a fact they SHOULD be better. Obviously the theology goes deeper than that, but everyone recognizes humans have problems.
As for the "would Ghandi go to hell" piece of it, the Catholic Church (and many other denominations) teach that we know of no other means of salvation apart from Christ, but we can not and will not put a limit in God's mercy. Thankfully that's above all of our pay grades
AGC said:Sapper Redux said:AGC said:kurt vonnegut said:
I was worried someone would poke holes in Ghandi's character. . . . for sake of discussion, Ghandi is just supposed to represent a very good person who was very well informed and educated on Christianity and its message, yet rejected its message.
Yeah, sorry, sapper's smugness was a little much to let go.
But this does speak to Christian theology: the best foil you have, the best 'good' person, really isn't a good person but at best an incomplete picture used as a mirror. When we fill it in we find out that there are many ways in which even they fall short. Indifference should surely count against someone's character as much as an explicit action they commit. The idea that he would like Christ while ignoring the Dalits is contradictory to Christ's message. Mother Teresa ministered to them as a follower of Christ while he didn't, even leaving her order to do so. He had far more influence and power to do so though.
It definitely says something about Christian theology if you must assume people are terrible.
Do you think non-violence against the British outweighs neglect and complicity in systemic oppression and abuse? To the point that ghandi should be in heaven?
Sapper Redux said:AGC said:Sapper Redux said:AGC said:kurt vonnegut said:
I was worried someone would poke holes in Ghandi's character. . . . for sake of discussion, Ghandi is just supposed to represent a very good person who was very well informed and educated on Christianity and its message, yet rejected its message.
Yeah, sorry, sapper's smugness was a little much to let go.
But this does speak to Christian theology: the best foil you have, the best 'good' person, really isn't a good person but at best an incomplete picture used as a mirror. When we fill it in we find out that there are many ways in which even they fall short. Indifference should surely count against someone's character as much as an explicit action they commit. The idea that he would like Christ while ignoring the Dalits is contradictory to Christ's message. Mother Teresa ministered to them as a follower of Christ while he didn't, even leaving her order to do so. He had far more influence and power to do so though.
It definitely says something about Christian theology if you must assume people are terrible.
Do you think non-violence against the British outweighs neglect and complicity in systemic oppression and abuse? To the point that ghandi should be in heaven?
You're aware of what the British did to the Indian and Pakistani people?
'Who cares about Dalits because the British' is not a good look.
If Christ's standard is the oppressed and marginalized it doesn't really matter. Ghandi didn't get it.
AGC said:Sapper Redux said:AGC said:Sapper Redux said:AGC said:kurt vonnegut said:
I was worried someone would poke holes in Ghandi's character. . . . for sake of discussion, Ghandi is just supposed to represent a very good person who was very well informed and educated on Christianity and its message, yet rejected its message.
Yeah, sorry, sapper's smugness was a little much to let go.
But this does speak to Christian theology: the best foil you have, the best 'good' person, really isn't a good person but at best an incomplete picture used as a mirror. When we fill it in we find out that there are many ways in which even they fall short. Indifference should surely count against someone's character as much as an explicit action they commit. The idea that he would like Christ while ignoring the Dalits is contradictory to Christ's message. Mother Teresa ministered to them as a follower of Christ while he didn't, even leaving her order to do so. He had far more influence and power to do so though.
It definitely says something about Christian theology if you must assume people are terrible.
Do you think non-violence against the British outweighs neglect and complicity in systemic oppression and abuse? To the point that ghandi should be in heaven?
You're aware of what the British did to the Indian and Pakistani people?
'Who cares about Dalits because the British' is not a good look.
What was the British treatment of India if not systemic oppression and abuse?
canadiaggie said:AGC said:Sapper Redux said:AGC said:Sapper Redux said:AGC said:kurt vonnegut said:
I was worried someone would poke holes in Ghandi's character. . . . for sake of discussion, Ghandi is just supposed to represent a very good person who was very well informed and educated on Christianity and its message, yet rejected its message.
Yeah, sorry, sapper's smugness was a little much to let go.
But this does speak to Christian theology: the best foil you have, the best 'good' person, really isn't a good person but at best an incomplete picture used as a mirror. When we fill it in we find out that there are many ways in which even they fall short. Indifference should surely count against someone's character as much as an explicit action they commit. The idea that he would like Christ while ignoring the Dalits is contradictory to Christ's message. Mother Teresa ministered to them as a follower of Christ while he didn't, even leaving her order to do so. He had far more influence and power to do so though.
It definitely says something about Christian theology if you must assume people are terrible.
Do you think non-violence against the British outweighs neglect and complicity in systemic oppression and abuse? To the point that ghandi should be in heaven?
You're aware of what the British did to the Indian and Pakistani people?
'Who cares about Dalits because the British' is not a good look.
What was the British treatment of India if not systemic oppression and abuse?
Ghandi needs to be rightly remembered as a whole: a man who equally participated in oppression and cruelty and did nothing to stop it (so long as he benefited). That's the only point I've made: you can't hold him up as a super moral man or even someone that understood Christ. He was neither.
Britain was responsible for a massive amount of poverty and a genocide several million strong of starved Indians. This isn't an endorsement of the caste system, but rather a suggestion to not trivialize 'standing up to the British'.AGC said:Sapper Redux said:
It definitely says something about Christian theology if you must assume people are terrible.
Do you think non-violence against the British outweighs neglect and complicity in systemic oppression and abuse? To the point that ghandi should be in heaven?
I don't know enough about Ghandi to confirm or object to what you think he is guilty of. My understanding of them man is that he was hugely critical of the caste system. Regardless, neglect / complicity / indifference can be difficult charges to bring against someone.
As an example, there are a billion hungry people in the world today. 3 billion in terrible poverty. Millions of homeless around the world. Millions dying of treatable diseases in the world. We could put together a daunting list of the world's problems and of those that could use our help. If you spend some of your time and money helping in some areas, can I accuse you of neglect and complicity toward those you haven't? This weekend when you sit down with your friends to watch a football game, can I accuse you of indifference toward a billion starving people because there is something more you could be doing at that moment? Are we as citizens complicit in all of the injustices of our governments unless we individually and separately protest each one of them equally?
Ghandi brought light to and stood up to an abuse and an injustice. Unless Ghandi actively campaigned for systematic oppressions, then I think it no more fair to accuse him of neglect and complicity than it would be for me to accuse you (or any of us) of the same.
In other words. . . . I think its impossible for any of us to not be guilty of some level of neglect / indifference / complicity. I think its important to draw a distinction between those who oppose oppression and abuse (even if they can do more) and those that actively campaign for it. By not doing so, I think you make room any person alive today or in the past to be chargeable with complicity in some type of genocide or atrocity.
Should Ghandi be in Heaven? If the answer is no because he was complicity in systematic oppression. Then virtually no Brit alive from 1858 to 1947 should be in Heaven either. Or any American complicit in slavery. Or German complicit in Nazism and the Holocaust. Or Russian that didn't speak out against Stalin. And on and on.
Find me anyone alive today or who lived in the past and I'll find something horrific that they did nothing to solve.
kurt vonnegut said:Britain was responsible for a massive amount of poverty and a genocide several million strong of starved Indians. This isn't an endorsement of the caste system, but rather a suggestion to not trivialize 'standing up to the British'.AGC said:Sapper Redux said:
It definitely says something about Christian theology if you must assume people are terrible.
Do you think non-violence against the British outweighs neglect and complicity in systemic oppression and abuse? To the point that ghandi should be in heaven?
I don't know enough about Ghandi to confirm or object to what you think he is guilty of. My understanding of them man is that he was hugely critical of the caste system. Regardless, neglect / complicity / indifference can be difficult charges to bring against someone.
As an example, there are a billion hungry people in the world today. 3 billion in terrible poverty. Millions of homeless around the world. Millions dying of treatable diseases in the world. We could put together a daunting list of the world's problems and of those that could use our help. If you spend some of your time and money helping in some areas, can I accuse you of neglect and complicity toward those you haven't? This weekend when you sit down with your friends to watch a football game, can I accuse you of indifference toward a billion starving people because there is something more you could be doing at that moment? Are we as citizens complicit in all of the injustices of our governments unless we individually and separately protest each one of them equally?
Ghandi brought light to and stood up to an abuse and an injustice. Unless Ghandi actively campaigned for systematic oppressions, then I think it no more fair to accuse him of neglect and complicity than it would be for me to accuse you (or any of us) of the same.
In other words. . . . I think its impossible for any of us to not be guilty of some level of neglect / indifference / complicity. I think its important to draw a distinction between those who oppose oppression and abuse (even if they can do more) and those that actively campaign for it. By not doing so, I think you make room any person alive today or in the past to be chargeable with complicity in some type of genocide or atrocity.
Should Ghandi be in Heaven? If the answer is no because he was complicity in systematic oppression. Then virtually no Brit alive from 1858 to 1947 should be in Heaven either. Or any American complicit in slavery. Or German complicit in Nazism and the Holocaust. Or Russian that didn't speak out against Stalin. And on and on.
Utilitarianism is a really bad metric for determining whether someone 'belongs' in heaven or not. No one is good enough. Not even Ghandi. Who really wants to debate the evils of the caste system and British occupation? Or slavery? Or the holocaust? Not me.
I do agree with you though that there are a lot of people complicit in evil throughout the ages that could and should have done more. It really does make people seem terrible (contrary to what sapper thinks). And it makes me wonder why any of us should belong there. We don't have any way of knowing how our actions impact everyone else, regardless of what we think when we do them.
So where does that leave us?
AGC said:
Utilitarianism is a really bad metric for determining whether someone 'belongs' in heaven or not. No one is good enough. Not even Ghandi. Who really wants to debate the evils of the caste system and British occupation? Or slavery? Or the holocaust? Not me.
I do agree with you though that there are a lot of people complicit in evil throughout the ages that could and should have done more. It really does make people seem terrible (contrary to what sapper thinks). And it makes me wonder why any of us should belong there. We don't have any way of knowing how our actions impact everyone else, regardless of what we think when we do them.
So where does that leave us?
I think it leaves us maybe in agreement that people are complicated and that evaluating how 'good' or 'bad' each of us is is convoluted.
This will sound more barbed than I intend it to be. . . . .
If the Christian consensus on this topic is that Jeffery Dahmer might be in Heaven and Ghandi [or insert some other 'good' non-Christian] might be in Hell. . . . then I think we should ask questions about this system of justice. Like - do we think this system of justice actually serves God's will and God's interests? Or does it serve the interests of a tribal religious group that values its own supremacy to the point of threatening eternal torture for non-compliance?
kurt vonnegut said:AGC said:
Utilitarianism is a really bad metric for determining whether someone 'belongs' in heaven or not. No one is good enough. Not even Ghandi. Who really wants to debate the evils of the caste system and British occupation? Or slavery? Or the holocaust? Not me.
I do agree with you though that there are a lot of people complicit in evil throughout the ages that could and should have done more. It really does make people seem terrible (contrary to what sapper thinks). And it makes me wonder why any of us should belong there. We don't have any way of knowing how our actions impact everyone else, regardless of what we think when we do them.
So where does that leave us?
I think it leaves us maybe in agreement that people are complicated and that evaluating how 'good' or 'bad' each of us is is convoluted.
This will sound more barbed than I intend it to be. . . . .
If the Christian consensus on this topic is that Jeffery Dahmer might be in Heaven and Ghandi [or insert some other 'good' non-Christian] might be in Hell. . . . then I think we should ask questions about this system of justice. Like - do we think this system of justice actually serves God's will and God's interests? Or does it serve the interests of a tribal religious group that values its own supremacy to the point of threatening eternal torture for non-compliance?
First off I completely agree. People don't fit nicely and neatly into good or bad categories.
No offense taken. I don't think there's a Christian consensus on it. Quite frankly they're both outside the church based on what I know of them and at God's mercy. He'll do what he pleases. I know what I have been commanded to do as a follower of Christ and that's my concern.
Edit: I think the presumption that you can question God assumes that you know the full scope of either person to the extent that you can pass a 'reasonable' or 'just' judgment at the same level he can.
AGC said:
Edit: I think the presumption that you can question God assumes that you know the full scope of either person to the extent that you can pass a 'reasonable' or 'just' judgment at the same level he can.
I don't know about questioning God. I am suggesting we question a church that claims to speak for God. Do Christian teachings serve God or do they serve Christianity?