Wednesday, February 7, 2024

Breivik Didn't Kill Because He Believes God Will Send Muslims to Hell, He Killed Over Keeping Norway a Secular Society

Someone Thought He was More Merciful than God (not than the one he believes in, but than the One Who revealed Himself)Other Answer to Same (YEC)Breivik Didn't Kill Because He Believes God Will Send Muslims to Hell, He Killed Over Keeping Norway a Secular Society

He was in fact excluded from the Masonic Lodge he belonged to the day following his crime.

Is Hell a Just Punishment? | Christian vs Atheist
Kristi Burke | 5 June 2023

1:35 I don't subscribe to that kind of evasion.

Yes, God is judging us, we are not judging ourselves.

Those who go to Hell have chosen Hell, but not at the moment when they are sent there. The time when they chose it was while committing mortal sin and not repenting (including if they were otherwise Christian or not).

I also don't subscribe to feeling uncomfortable when speaking of God judging.

Because, I know what the alternative ideas are.

  • there is no afterlife (the atheist version doesn't involve any opinion on why God would want it like that, a theistic one would be "God's interested in how we live in society, he made it so this world is all there is" = Babylonian view, with a somewhat extreme twist)
  • afterlife is generally just boring (Babylonian view as stated)
  • "God's love burns the blessed from the inside and the damned from the outside" (makes God an automaton who cannot in any way shape or form help us to sth better than what we chose, it's an opinion among Greek Orthodox)
  • "we all spend eternity with God, we only experience it in different ways" (dito, Robert Barron's view)
  • "God redeems everyone in the end" (makes man an automaton, which makes one wonder why God allowed us even to sin in the first place, may be one version in Judaism)
  • "God annihilates those He doesn't want in the Millennium" (makes God's punishment attack the essence of evil men, by annihilation, rather than the will of them, by suffering = makes God punish the wrong thing, and be even crueller — if just for a moment — to the damned than the idea of eternal punishment makes Him)

2:47 As soon as there is a shade of psychiatry involved, no, people will not get what they deserve by their actions.

People will get punished according to how "dangerous" they are by their "mentality" (as analysed by shrinks).

3:00 Both Hell and Mental Institutions are about people who refuse to learn their lessons.

The difference is, according to the Christian faith, the God who sends someone to Hell actually knows exactly what lessons were given, how one could or could not have reacted better to them, and is not condemning anyone for a sin they are just "materially" committing (as in physically doing the act) if they are not at all accountable for it.

Meanwhile, shrinks are actually harsher to one's comfort and at least subjective wellbeing, the less they think one accountable. The more they excuse one, the more you have to fear they will also abuse you, even for the rest of your life. Even if what you did was no worse than stealing in a grocery store or getting on a train without paying the ticket.

3:14 Here is from the Breivik trial:

On 24 August 2012, beginning approximately 10 a.m. CEST, the court formally began to read the verdict against Breivik. Breivik was adjudged sane and sentenced to containment—a special form of a prison sentence that can be extended indefinitely—with a time frame of 21 years and a minimum time of 10 years, the maximum penalty in Norway.[5]

Now, what is exactly coming forth? Well, there are voices saying "he'll never get out" ...

  • The maximum penalty under the military penal code is life imprisonment.
  • The maximum determinate penalty (civilian penal code) is 21 years' imprisonment, but only a small percentage of prisoners serve more than 14 years. Prisoners will typically get unsupervised parole for weekends after serving a third of their sentence (a maximum of 7 years) and can receive early release after serving two thirds of their sentence (a maximum of 14 years). In 2008, to fulfill its requirements under the Rome Statute, Norway created a new maximal penalty of 30 years for crimes against humanity.[1]
  • The indeterminate penalty (civilian penal code), called "preventive detention" (Norwegian: forvaring), is set at up to 21 years' imprisonment, with no eligibility for parole for a time period of at least 10 years, depending on the sentence. If the prisoner is still considered dangerous after serving the original sentence, the detention can be extended by five years at a time. Renewal of the detention every five years can in theory result in actual life imprisonment. Preventive detention is used when the prisoner is deemed a danger to society and there is a great chance of them committing violent crimes in the future. However, after the minimum time period has elapsed, the offender can petition for parole once every year, and this may be granted if it is determined that they are no longer a danger to society.[2]

He got option three.

Well, the problem is, once a man is under shrinks, in Scandinavia it's actually indeterminate. Plus, a grant is never definitive.

How evil is that?

Allowing shrinks into the penal system means, people will not just be locked up, they will be baited to see if they are still dangerous.

3:24 Catholicism definitely says that no venial sin and no accumulation of venial sins as longer as they stay just that can get you to Hell.

And for one mortal ... 1) only if you aren't forgiven while still alive, and 2) those who don't bother to get forgiven usually accumulate mortal ones, dying and being damned after only one is theoretically possible, but highly rare, and 3) Hell has very different pains depending on what mortal sin you are damned for.

So the principle you mention holds for God's justice as well.

3:44 Hell is not "the harshest extent" it's the end station for unrepentance.

The harshest extent is the degree of Hell that's worst. That's what Satan got.

3:54 If you decided to steal an apple from the grocery store for fun, it's venial, and you won't be sent to Hell for that.

If you decided to steal an apple from the grocery store because you needed sth to eat and knew it was no good asking, well, that's not a sin at all.

If you thought it was no good asking and were wrong, it was not a sin at all when you were sincerely wrong.

5:36 "every single day torturing him"

That's a very fair assessment of what happens to someone sentenced to be treated by shrinks.

It's not quite the same for Hell.

Every devil was once a good angel. Including but not limited to Satan.

Every devil knew exactly what he was doing, did it anyway, and is nothing like eligible for parole anyway.

They have however for some time been granted a game : how many men can they succeed in damning?

A devil who succeeds in damning a person, i e seducing him to sth he gets damned for, will have the meagre enjoyment of torturing that person who was stupid enough to trust his promptings. That's one part of the tortures. There is also fire, both for the damned and for the devil that got him. But another part is having at least a glimpse of what one missed, how one could have been eternally happy instead, and at least a glimpse of how one was responsible at the turning point.

God has made souls in such a way that after a certain time, they cannot change their basic orientation. That certain time occurs when one dies. The point of tortures is, while God doesn't force the damned to change, He also doesn't offer them an eternal illusion about what they actually chose.

And if you know anything about persons making themselves and others miserable, you might realise that part of that is allowing them at least glimpses of what their own mentality entails. At least enough for them to be miserable by their own doing.

5:48 The shrinks are above that kind or rules.

They are above the law.

6:03 A person in prison usually has a healthy body.

This means, a body which is adapted to what God has given him, not to what his mind would give him, if allowed sufficient time to degrade it.

The damned before the day of resurrection have no bodies that can offer them any kind of pleasant distraction (not just speaking of sex, I mean even food or the feel of air and sunlight in the yard). The damned after the day of resurrection have bodies that fit their eternal state of mind.

6:10 "more humanely than God"

That illusion comes only from our justice system never ever having to have one sentenced criminal eternally on its hands.

7:13 In fact, if the matter is sufficiently grave, the judge won't give two hoots on whether you had actually looked up the fact that murdering 77 on Utøya was illegal or not.

So, being "absolutely certain" of the law is not a requirement for just punishment.

It's sufficient to be reasonably certain it would normally be wrong (whatever bad excuses you may give yourself for "this once" and whatever illusions you may have about the legal system).

7:26 C o m e ON!

You know perfectly well that there are people who did not lear to read at all, did not learn to look things up, and so on, and if the crime is serious enough they still get sentenced.

Pretending this is fair because "they could look it up" is partly disingenious, and partly, insofar as really applicable, a fair parallel to how God does His justice.

No one is sentenced to Hell for a sin he had no way of knowing was sinful.

And the fact of not having a Bible doesn't make all that much of a difference for lots of sins.

Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,
[Romans 2:15]

This involves homosexuality voluntarily lived out as mentioned in the previous chapter. The fact of being attracted to someone of the same sex may not be a sin, because it may be a punishment (for religious deception). But the fact of acting it out, well, all societies have at least traces of some idea that this is wrong. Including our own, where the trace takes the form of calling "homophobia" a "reactionary mindset" ... as if it were or even conceivably could be wrong to prefer the ideas of loads of generations before over a very new one which is stated as very new, or a very exceptional one, which is stated as exceptional ("yeah, people used to be homophobes ... except the Greeks" ....)

7:37 Speeding can be known to be a crime because no one is allowed to drive before getting a drivers licence.

No one is — and no one should be — required to take a licence for actually living.

But there is another part about speeding. In order to know the crime, you need to know the speed limit.

Imagine you drive across the border in Tijuana. Mexican police catches you for speeding. There is a road that says "60" and you have concluded it's "60 miles per hour" ... in fact, it's "60 km per hour" ... the Mexican police will probably let you off one time, if you didn't actually hurt anyone, but even then you can have a somewhat heated conversation about "didn't you know we 'ave the metric seestem?" or "didn't you see how everyone else was driving slower?"

Speed limits is a perfect example of the kind of things you might really need to have a Catholic Catechism (based on the Bible, but with good simplification, and I don't mean the infamous CCC, get something like Baltimore Catechism N° 4 or Catechism of St. Pius X) in order to comprehend. However, God will never damn you over simply being genuinely ignorant of His limits on the mortal sin you get damned for.

The voices He gave you to keep off that road to Hell are the exact same that will keep you accountable for actually knowing the law on the relevant issues.

7:53 Your example is actually a very good reason to be against sowing religious confusion.

Why was Tyndale burned? No, it was not for translating the Bible, that was against an English jurisprudence on heresy, possibly the actual text of 1401 even, but it was not against the laws of the Catholic Church overall.

If you did so without approval of your bishop, you were a suspect of heresy, but you weren't condemned as in the reports on the Coventry trials (outside England, that is).

He was burned in Vilvoorde, and his Inquisitor had made sure that:
  • he believed a sinner who's justified need make no good works to remain justified
  • he intended to preach that (which is like cherrypicking Ephesians 2 verses 8 and 9 and leaving out verse 10).

That interpretation of Romans 3 actually was "against the law of the land" ... what happened in the English speaking world, and has spread to lots of other places, no state is entirely free, is the exact confusion you are speaking about.

However, there definitely are crimes that are not about "the speed limit" ... again, the ones damned by God will never be simply damned for what they committed in genuine ignorance, not actively opted for.

8:02 You have just given an excellent reason why the Catholic Church as a first basis of Catholic doctrine doesn't hand out a Bible to everyone, like the Gideons, but insists on Catechesis with a few simple to learn by heart lists, and then the explanations attached to such lists.

8:25 In the Catholic Church, your priest IS law enforcement.

When you confess sins you were sure were sins to your father confessor, you also add "I also did this, it happened like this, do I need to repent of this" and he tells you yes or no.

In the overall world, your conscience (as it exists before you silence part of it) is law enforcement.

8:41 Confessional ambiguity is no valid reason.

Of the confessions available today, check out which ones were available in 1400. Mormons weren't. Ray Comfort wasn't. The Catholic Church was. For that matter, so were Waldensians. Go back 600 years more. The Waldensians weren't, the Catholic Church was.

Your choice is between Catholic and Orthodox, which side of the split in 1054 was faithful to the past of the Church prior to that. Or, somewhat more exotic, you might go for one of the Churches known as Copts, Armenians, Assyrians.

But like Matthew 28:16—20 is precise about "all days" it's also precise about "all nations" ... the Church cannot be a national monopoly of a specific nation. Bavarians and Poles are very different between them or with Latin Americans. Orthodox are more homogenous, and the other ones that were around in 800 and still are, are historically restricted to one or two nations except some periods when Nestorians were indeed outside the Assyrian people.

9:16 No, you do not have to have faith to believe any of it.

Faith is the virtue that helps you keep believing all of it, even when you might doubt some of it.

9:22 As said, Church history. Look up which existed and which didn't exist 100, 200, 400, 800 years ago.

9:31 You might pretend that Orthodox and Anglicans disagree with Catholics on whether contraception is a sin.

First, you can watch Europe, country after country, have its pension systems destroyed and its old either more miserable or able to make the young more miserable or both, because Europe has contracepted more than the US.

But then you can check and see that 100 years ago, Anglicans and Orthodox still agreed with the Catholic Church.

1920 Lambeth Conference gave a Catholic conclusion, 1930 Lambeth Conference a non-Catholic one. With Orthodox, it's even later, 1970's under Communist pressure.

9:39 No, between religions, as between confessions, 9 times out of 10, it's not all subjective.

It's a difference about the exact speed limit between people who agree that speed driving on public roads is wrong.

The secularist idea is often the least rational, it's like saying "the German Autobahn has no speed limit," (I think that's technically true for relevant stretches) "let's have no speed limit next to our Kinder garden, yeah!!!!" (The attitude to abortion is obvious and the attitude to homosexuality and other contraception should be able to show its bad light to people who have some sense of cause and effect and some accurate knowledge about Europe right now — including Russia which had a pension rebellion headed by Navalny which fortunately Covid and Ukraine took the eyes away from).

10:00 It's actually, unless the supposed marriage itself is a case of sexual immorality. You didn't know you married your long lost sister or brother. You didn't know you married a trans to the opposite sex. You didn't know your spouse needed to be unmarried (or didn't care) so, you hoped your marriage was one, when it wasn't.

And I mean objectively, not about the quality of the emotions. Here is Matthew 19, the two verses that are relevant, and under it the Catholic comment:

Matthew 19:8 He saith to them: Moses because of the hardness of your hearts permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 *And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and he who shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.


Ver. 8. Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you, &c. Whether this was permitted in the old law, so that the man who was divorced from his wife could marry another woman, is disputed. Some think this second marriage was still unlawful, though tolerated, and not punished. At least in the new law, a divorce upon just causes may be sometimes permitted; but this does not make it lawful for the man or woman so separated to marry another. (Witham)

The latter part of this verse, of St. Paul, (Romans vii. 3,) and the constant tradition of the Church, shew that the exception only refers to separation, but not to the marrying another during the life of the parties. In this place Christ restores the original condition of the marriage state, and henceforth will have it to be a perfect figure of the hypostatic union of his divine person with our human nature, as also of his nuptial union with his Church, and consequently that it should be indissoluble. (Tirinus)

Ver. 9. And I say to you. It is worthy of remark, that in the parallel texts, St. Mark x. 2. and St. Luke xvi. 18. and St. Paul to Corinthians vii. 10. omit the exception of fornication; and also that St. Matthew himself omits it in the second part of the verse; and says absolutely, that he who shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery. It perhaps crept in here from chap. v. 32, where it is found in a phrase very similar to this, but which expresses a case widely different. Divorce is in no case admitted but in that of adultery. This is what Christ teaches in chap. v. 32, and to this the exception is referred, marked in the two texts. But in this very case the separated parties cannot contract a second marriage without again committing adultery, as we must infer, from a comparison of this text with the parallel texts of St. Mark and St. Luke. (Bible de Vence)

If we did not understand it in this manner, the case of the adulteress would be preferable to the case of her who should be put away without any crime of her own; as in this supposition, the former would be allowed to marry again, which the latter would not be allowed. (Tirinus)

St. Augustine is very explicit on this subject. See lib. 11. de adult conjug. chap. xxi. xxii. xxiv.

St. Jerome, in his high commendation of the noble matron, Fabiola, says of her: "that though she was the innocent party, for the unlawful act of marrying again, she did public penance." (In Epitaph. Fabiolæ.)

This universally received doctrine of the Catholic Church was confirmed in the general council of Trent. (Session xxiv. canon 6.)

10:08 Whether cheating or abusing, you have a case for leaving the person, you have no case for marrying someone else.

When it comes to the abuse, it's a question how grave it is, and when it comes to cheating, it's also a case on how much you tolerate or whether you are unfaithful yourself.

10:50 "a subjective law, that's not readily accessible to all people and that dishes out the worst possible punishment"

Were you trying to describe shrinks?

a) basically any diagnostic criterium is subjective, either because it's a matter of judgement, or because it becomes so when full application would be impossible and give the corps immediately bad reputation and trigger a hard blowback
b) how they work is not readily accessible (DSM-V is huge)
c) and being treated like you cannot make your own decisions, and often with medications that torment you, the rest of your life definitely is dishing out the worst possible punishment, in this life.

12:02 Not an excellent way of putting how Jesus redeemed us, no.

Sounds a bit like Calvin. If he'd ventured beyond his robber's nest in Geneva to for instance Rome, he might have paid for saying so on a bonfire.

Jesus paid the penalty of dying, due to Adam's sin, so He's the right to resurrect us, reverse the penalty.

But when it comes to damnation, what Jesus did was gaining the graces of forgiveness and the transforming grace for us, by offering a sacrifice way beyond what the insult to God's majesty was.

14:14 Jesus is not a random stranger.

Innocent, yes. Stranger, no, not to those who are saved.

14:32 The thing Jesus did carry for us, and with us, was dying.

Justice demands His rising from the dead, since He was innocent.

Then justice also demands we can be raised from the dead, it was us He died for, and His sacrifice is worth infinitely more, since it's God's sacrifice of Himself, to God.

So, He gains Resurrection for everyone, not just for Himself, as the case would have been had He been a man.

In the case of Damnation, He never was a standin in the first place, and those who pretend He was are classed as Heretics by the Catholic Church.

14:39 He already was God of the entire Universe before His Incarnation, and remained so.

15:17 First of all, the justice of Hell is not about what crime you committed, it's about whether you repented of a mortal sin before dying.

Between different damned, there is justice about what gravity the crime had, or mortals sins that aren't crimes in human justice.

Between different saved, there is justice about the reward, on how well you did penance, how well you loved God.

B U T the justice of someone being sentenced to Hell is:
  • he cannot be annihilated, because God refuses to punish him that much
  • he cannot change any more, since he decided to not change while he had an opportunity
  • he should not be sponging on God and better people for an illusion of the happiness he hasn't when he missed the real thing.

No comments: