Religious debate

[Yukaphile]

No, you yourself said what heaven is was precisely why I hate organized religion. It's about personal salvation, not universal justice, which I think should be more important than perhaps trying to "save the soul" of some truly nasty people.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

No, you yourself said what heaven is was precisely why I hate organized religion. It's about personal salvation, not universal justice, which I think should be more important than perhaps trying to "save the soul" of some truly nasty people.

It's the same ethical construct in treating prisoners decently. And its treatment is pretty consistent with therapy, which I don't have much of a problem in allowing such people to take up.

[Yukaphile]

I could agree with that, at least to a degree - namely that even though we have an impartial system, if some of those rotten creatures I hate so much who I read about were given a trial, while my initial feeling is that I'd want them to suffer as much as possible, in truth, they shouldn't. It'd make us no better. They should be detained, locked away, and left to stew in their own isolation. It's harsh, but not hellish, if that makes sense. But allowing someone to be let into a realm of peace and light and love when they're guilty of so much that they're guilty of because they felt "slightly guilty" and made a token effort to reform which, tbh, I think was more for show than an actual attempt at redemption - because as I said, atonement is hard work that requires so much commitment, I don't think someone who stoops so low could ever pay it off - is rewarding bad behavior. And it's especially unfair if their victims are given a sentence in hell over a few mistaken beliefs. That's why I prefer the belief that the shape and texture of your personality, your actions in this life, and who you are, that can't be changed, is what determines the world to come. If you're a hateful, selfish, spiteful, evil creature, that will be what's reflected back at you. Simple as that.

[Madner Kami]

No, you yourself said what heaven is was precisely why I hate organized religion. It's about personal salvation, not universal justice, which I think should be more important than perhaps trying to "save the soul" of some truly nasty people.

Well, the "soul" of perfectly decent and nice people doesn't exactly need to be saved, wouldn't you say?

[Yukaphile]

True, but on the other hand, a person who's wounded so many souls shouldn't be allowed into the same place they are. Again, I think justice should trump "saving" some people who frankly don't deserve it, and some of their remarks about "oh how I could have done such a thing" given how bestial it was seems very flat and hollow. If their soul can be saved simply because "how did I do this thing" which is really a non-apology and their very actions conform to the mindset of non-apology, then it's a shit universe because it's no different than these religious Christian nuts who go around making people's lives hell because they think they've been saved, so they can do whatever the hell they want. Light regret means eternal salvation. Please.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

This bad faith argument of yours though with their non-apology undermines things. Following the principles for anybody is a really somber directive, so much so that people aren't even really expected to follow it perfectly. And whenever I hear of priests and confessions etc... it's mostly dealing with the perspective that most anybody is not following the protocol adequately, and that's what's being speculated upon. Not whether they're going to heaven or hell, but just ironing out their confusion over things. So I mean like, here, you're saying "oh well that's all that serial killers have to do." Just lie to the priest or shallowly admit they did wrong or something without penance. I mean, if it's the first, then no, there's no real cheating at this thing because it's a personal issue, not a proficiency test. And with the second, they don't get sunshine put up their ass, they get the same somber vague description about God and his unfathomable tapestry and how it's really just a being that doesn't give a shit about the past.

There's no way that this is really going beyond ordinances on Earth to redeem or dismiss horrible things that have been done, just that that's not what's being put under the microscope. And you keep taking this paradise thing way too literally. It's about not suffering, not reward. There's a lot of interpretations of Heaven being an utterly boring place.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Also it's interesting to note the symbiotic relationship between Anonymous groups religious principles with something from a church. It's fair to consider that maybe it's just more religious groups that make up a good amount of support groups, but a lot of what I hear from people or how it seems in media, they're consistent exclusively with principal focus on somewhat dogmatic points while at the same time having no apparent nominal correlation with such groups (like cousin groups or something, maybe once removed).

So you could say that line of consideration doesn't really apply to the horrible people that we're talking about. I think I kinda got that at one part what you were saying. But or you could say the matter's principal focus is on ethical development aside from rehabilitation, perhaps the consideration that you acknowledged that has a hand in hand situation between fundamentally indiscriminate treatment and also just doing it for more selfish repercussion considerations of "oh for what we have become, but our enemies?"

[Yukaphile]

I'm not expecting people to be perfect, we all have our sins, but I'm talking true and honest to God monsters. If someone guilty of what I'd read they confessed about anonymously in a book were really remorseful, they wouldn't do so from the shadows, but spend their whole lives, or what time they have left, among the community talking about the dangers of what they did, how easy it could happen to anyone, and what to do to avoid it. Or at least turn themselves in to give us justice. That they won't do so tells me they're not only monsters, but cowards as well. It's the same as a deathbed confession - I'm only going to admit to this terrible thing I did when no one can prosecute me for it now.

Hence why I tend to think you make your own afterlife. Its shape depends on you.

Even truly rotten people can warn others of the dangers of the path they followed. That they won't do so, that they offer token non-apologies, it's what so frustrating. It's that they won't commit to true redemption, but I honestly feel as if given the choice to do it all over again, they wouldn't. That's a vague limbo between the two and it's utterly stupid. You need to commit to one, or it just doesn't work given the severity of what you have done. Either stand by your flawed cruelty, think you did nothing wrong, or work hard to change your feelings and spread further enlightenment. But that doesn't happen.

This is a big problem I have with the idea that "God" has saved someone bad. At what point is the measuring bar for judging "when" they have been saved? In the past, that was abused by corrupt priests. I don't trust organized religion as far as I could throw them.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I'm not expecting people to be perfect, we all have our sins, but I'm talking true and honest to God monsters. If someone guilty of what I'd read they confessed about anonymously in a book were really remorseful, they wouldn't do so from the shadows, but spend their whole lives, or what time they have left, among the community talking about the dangers of what they did, how easy it could happen to anyone, and what to do to avoid it. Or at least turn themselves in to give us justice. That they won't do so tells me they're not only monsters, but cowards as well. It's the same as a deathbed confession - I'm only going to admit to this terrible thing I did when no one can prosecute me for it now.

Well the truth can be a valuable thing in the long run. But ultimately it sounds like these reasons are somewhat selfish considerations of how your lack of trust inhibits your consideration on how to treat the situation. Treating it more on the basis your own moral judgement of their character.

I say that treating them in the best interest of the public, locking them up, etc. with a sense of consideration for pragmatic selfless reasons isn't in the worst of vices. That can set a definable limit on how far we go to judge them by such standards.

Hence why I tend to think you make your own afterlife. Its shape depends on you.

I agree with how the practice seems to work.

[Yukaphile]

I'm not talking "vices," I mean actually people deliberately hurting one another in the nastiest ways possible far past the pale.

Yeah. I prefer that, tbh.