Down boy! I said, DOWN!

June 11, 2004 4:13 PM

The Son of Sam has a blog. Most recent entries are here.
posted by CunningLinguist (76 comments total)

I stumbled across his blog about an hour ago after I saw that he'd been denied parole again. I was glad to see that no one is making any money off of it:

We do NOT solicit or accept any money, donations, sympathy or help of any kind for ourselves or for David Berkowitz. Please do NOT send anything of value to us at all.

But I have a hard time accepting that people can change so radically without questioning their motives.
posted by kamikazegopher at 4:41 PM on June 11, 2004

ewwwww...and he became a Christian? ewwwww

more on him and that summer here

your 2nd link is broken, cunning
posted by amberglow at 4:47 PM on June 11, 2004

While I'm glad he's recovering, blaming his reprehensible behaviour on a demonic possession is a cop-out.
posted by Evstar at 4:51 PM on June 11, 2004

Step 1. Kill people, then say you love jesus
Step 2. ???
Step 3. Profit!
posted by mathowie at 5:03 PM on June 11, 2004

Maybe it's a ploy to get out?
posted by amberglow at 5:05 PM on June 11, 2004

The dog did it.
The Devil did it.
posted by planetkyoto at 5:22 PM on June 11, 2004

amberglow - I've read a few months of his entries, and considering all the time and effort he's put into the whole jesus thing, and the fact that he actually declined to go to his first parole hearing, in 2002, I doubt it's a ploy to get out. I have my doubts as to how much Jesus has changed him, fundamentally, but having trudged through all that I did, I have no doubts that he's entirely sincere about his religion.
posted by dogmatic at 5:27 PM on June 11, 2004

So he's swapped one delusion for another...not much of a surprise, really, is it?
posted by rushmc at 5:30 PM on June 11, 2004

Maybe it's a ploy to get out?

Fat chance.

Maybe he needs to write a kids book: Son Of Sam I Am perhaps?
posted by jonmc at 5:44 PM on June 11, 2004

Give me a ring when his dog gets a blog.
posted by yerfatma at 5:46 PM on June 11, 2004

Matt, Moses was a murderer, David was a murderer, and Paul (when he was Saul) at the very least assented to a murder (Stephen). So there's precedent.
posted by konolia at 5:48 PM on June 11, 2004

Some delusions are much, much better than others. In my view religion is exactly like recreational drugs. I will defend to ... well, not the death, but certainly to the internet ... any person's right to indulge for themselves. This is a consequence of personal sovereignty, the absolute right to harm yourself.

The corollary is that some drugs do induce psychopathic behavior in some people, and those people oughtn't to be allowed to have those drugs, because we as a society have an overwhelming interest in not having psychopathic behavior happen (the point at which social order trumps individual freedom). Similarly, the practice of some religions by some people lead to psychopathy, and that also ought to have law-enforcement intervention.

Both after, of course, the person actually does something psychopathic. That is one of the many, many prices of freedom: people have to be free to actually commit crimes before they are punished for them.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 5:53 PM on June 11, 2004

are you comparing that serial killer to Moses and David and Paul? Those people did good, or tried to--not murdered young women and terrorized a whole city.
posted by amberglow at 5:53 PM on June 11, 2004

Matt, Moses was a murderer, David was a murderer, and Paul (when he was Saul) at the very least assented to a murder (Stephen). So there's precedent.

Wait a minute. And you worship these people?
posted by mathowie at 6:05 PM on June 11, 2004

Susan Atkins is another lifer who has found Jesus.
posted by Oriole Adams at 6:17 PM on June 11, 2004

That is one of the many, many prices of freedom: people have to be free to actually commit crimes before they are punished for them.

Careful, that's probably enough to get you looked at twice these days...
posted by rushmc at 6:22 PM on June 11, 2004

But I have a hard time accepting that people can change so radically without questioning their motives.

I think what rushmc said is on target. He hasn't changed that radically; he's just switched obsessions. But of course, some obsessions really are better than others; I'd rather he were a jesus freak than a serial murderer. Likewise, one can argue it's just another addiction, but for many it's better to be in AA than on the bottle. Or on delusions: in that genital cutting post, the article said the cutters were convinced out of their work by religious leaders who said god didn't want it done (vs earlier belief that god specifically did want it - needed it - done) - they didn't come to the conclusion based on reason and empathy, but just their deluded faith in the supposed word of god as read by current leaders. Yet still, I am glad they are laying down the knives.

It's kind of depressing, because it'd be better if people could get through without addictions and delusions, but that doesn't seem to be the way things are.
posted by mdn at 6:26 PM on June 11, 2004

"I'd rather he were a jesus freak than a serial murderer."

The two aren't mutually exclusive.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:34 PM on June 11, 2004

Atkins and Berkowitz saw Jesus, huh?

I guess Jesus didn't see them first.

Call me crazy, but isn't one of the central tenets of Christianity accepting the consequences for your deeds? If they've truly come around they'd realize that they both should accept the fact that they'll die in prison.
posted by jonmc at 6:36 PM on June 11, 2004

Matt, Moses was a murderer, David was a murderer, and Paul (when he was Saul) at the very least assented to a murder (Stephen). So there's precedent.

Wait a minute. And you worship these people?

To be fair (and I'm not a Christian, so I could be way off), Christians don't worship Moses, David & Paul/Saul. They worship the Holy Trinity, and learn from the stories of Moses, David & Paul/Saul.
posted by macadamiaranch at 7:12 PM on June 11, 2004

What Matt said.

Seen that pattern in a bazillion times with slight variations. Good for him if he now finds Jesus or Buddah or Allah or whatever, but that doesn't resurrect anybody.
posted by elpapacito at 7:46 PM on June 11, 2004

This was on the Front Page of the NY Daily News today. His victim's families are not particularly happy about it, but he's not technically breaking any rules.
posted by Jugwine at 7:55 PM on June 11, 2004

Makes you actually want censorship on the web, doesn't it?
posted by tommasz at 7:59 PM on June 11, 2004

he didn't "get" religion in jail. religion was part of the madness that involved killing people. see here. that he's still religious doesn't mean he's now a nice little angel. he could just as easily be a devil.

given the way his "christian" beliefs were part of his appalling crimes, you'd think a church would think twice before encouranging them further. i guess the reasoning goes that a psychotic christian is better than an atheist...
posted by andrew cooke at 7:59 PM on June 11, 2004

To be fair, Berkowitz _does_ want to remain in jail. He doesn't want parole, just forgiveness. Now, whether or not he's mentally healthy, or whether his conversion is a good thing or not, that's another story entirely.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 8:03 PM on June 11, 2004

tommasz: why is that? his rantings on the web hurt no one.
posted by Hackworth at 8:14 PM on June 11, 2004

I definitely don't believe in rehabilitation via the justice system. I'm not sure if I believe in rehabilitation by any justice system. But I do believe that people change over time, and as bizarre as it must be to write corny letters to the police and act on murderous impulses, it's even stranger to imagine someone enduring in such a state.

I'm not saying let him out of the cell. I'm just saying leave him in one for 20 years and he might start to talk sense, or, in this case, christ.
posted by scarabic at 8:22 PM on June 11, 2004

jonmc: The central tenet of Christianity is salvation. Jesus came and died for our sins, because on our own, we couldn't save ourselves.

The difficult thing in a situation like this is: Why would Jesus save someone such as Berkowitz? As it is, if this guy truly has been saved, he's forgiven in God's eyes.

That doesn't mean he won't continue to suffer the earthly consequences of his actions. Example : One of the people who died on the cross next to Jesus asked forgiveness for his sins. Jesus forgave him, but the man still died.

I think Konolia's point is that the Bible is filled with examples of people who made mistakes but went on to do good things.

I don't know if there's good things Berkowitz can do while he's still alive. Maybe the best thing he can do is die. But at any rate, I don't think the Web site is self serving or an attempt to glorify him.

Fwiw: Christians don't worship individuals. Catholics have this thing about saints I don't really understand, but protestants, etc, base their religion around who God is, who Jesus is and what he did.
posted by Happydaz at 8:29 PM on June 11, 2004

> he didn't "get" religion in jail

Actually he did. He was "converted" by some christian group. I believe the same ones that run that site. People swap out supernatural beliefs all the time, but he's clearly in the cult of christ now.

I dont understand the obsession people have with serial killers. He was a fuck up who killed a lot of people. In a sample size of BILLIONS there will be humans who are that fucked up.

He belongs in the dustbin of history not in some infamous 'league of bad men.' He's not a look into 'the dark side of humanity' anymore than Winona Rider is a look into the 'world of bad celebrities.' He's quite ordinary if not pretty dumb and frankly not worth all the attention he gets. He was caught and punished. Seems like the system worked.

Murders happens all the time. A few times an hour in America. Some people just really get into it for a host of reasons.
posted by skallas at 8:36 PM on June 11, 2004

Give me a ring when he stops all the God-Talk™, and starts talking like a real human being - anger, fear, desires, doubt, anguish and all.

Personally I think the title of the blog is a little distasteful - it implies he's been forgiven, not that he's seeking forgiveness. It's kind of 'in your face people, I'm forgiven!'

But good luck to him in his coversion. Any insincerity on his part will only hurt him.
posted by Blue Stone at 8:45 PM on June 11, 2004

> he didn't "get" religion in jail

Actually he did. He was "converted" by some christian group.

Geez, those people will take anyone.

I dont understand the obsession people have with serial killers.

People are fascinated to see what happens to people who break the rules. I'm not talking about the Ken Lays of the world, either, I'm talking about primal, age-old norms of human behavior, like: "murder is bad."

There are two dimensions to this:

First, people want to live at least a little, vicariously, through people who have done what they're not willing to do. I'm never going to kill anyone. I've never even hit anyone. But I am familiar with the urge, I can tell you that. It's forever stifled. I'm curious to know what would become of me if I allowed it to rule me, and people like this poor schmuck are extreme cases of that. It's interesting... and morbid, weird, and not necessarily "healthy." But I think I'm up to reading a few blog entries without losing my mind.

Second, I think we're fascinated by confronting our own worst fears about who might be out there gunning for us. We all have latent fears about danger, about human predators who want to get us. For those of us who aren't interested in identifiying with the killer, as I described in #1, this is a way to explore the pathology while keeping it safely at arm's length. Shit, the way some paranoids talk about saving the children, you'd think these pages were required reading for all parents.
posted by scarabic at 9:04 PM on June 11, 2004

In prison and in Christianity, Berkowitz has found two perfect fits.
posted by Hildago at 10:37 PM on June 11, 2004

Call me crazy, but isn't one of the central tenets of Christianity accepting the consequences for your deeds? If they've truly come around they'd realize that they both should accept the fact that they'll die in prison.

jon, this may or may not have been said before, but if you read over his writings, in particular his denial of parole , you'd see that he's fully accepted his punishment and intends to spend the rest of his life there.
posted by dogmatic at 11:13 PM on June 11, 2004

if this guy truly has been saved, he's forgiven in God's eyes.

So, just to unnecessarily reiterate an old, tired point: a "forgiven" serial killer goes to heaven and basks in the glory of God for all eternity, and [insert your favorite secular or non-christian hero here] either burns in hell, or just dies and stays dead, depending on your interpretation.

And, to unnecessarily reiterate my own reaction to that point: fuck your assface God and his mysterious ways.
posted by majcher at 12:57 AM on June 12, 2004

The Smoking Gun has 12 pages of Mr. Berkowitz's weblog ready for the confused masses, too.
posted by cmonkey at 2:05 AM on June 12, 2004

From an unrelated article: In 1977, Jimmy Breslin, then a New York Daily News columnist, consulted with police before publishing a letter from the "Son of Sam" serial killer, David Berkowitz. Ressler said that Berkowitz, in a prison interview, said that "when he saw his letters in the paper it really sent his ego out of control. Seeing these letters . . . probably escalated his murderous activities."

From the Crime Library site: Like many serial killers, he nourished his sick ego from the newspaper attention he received for his crimes. He got the idea of sending the letter to Jimmy Breslin from a book on Jack the Ripper. Ressler found out that "after the press started calling him Son of Sam he adopted the moniker as his own, and even fashioning a logo for it."

I don't know whether Berkowitz's conversion is sincere or not, but there is no denying that it has given him a voice and venue via the Christian evangelicals... or in other words, even more publicity. I have the feeling that knowing his journal is being read on the internet gives him a great feeling of satisfaction.
posted by taz at 2:13 AM on June 12, 2004

Moses and David didn't believe in Jesus. Jesus happened after their collective facts. I dunno about Moses, but David was in a duel thingie which is a lot different than sneaking up on people making out in cars, and blasting their brains out. More like a war thing, yanno, like in Iraq?
posted by Eekacat at 2:39 AM on June 12, 2004

It is interesting to hear, "There is hope for you, too!" from a guy known for randomly shooting people in the face with a .44.

He hasn't changed that radically; he's just switched obsessions.

That's the impression I get, too. As Blue Stone said there really doesn't seem to be a person there beneath all the BibleBot spoutings. Most of his journal entries are roughly interchangeable: "Mundane-thing-X happened today and it sucked but I thank Jesus for what I have and I'm planning on praying a lot and getting to know God better this week".

There's a fascinating bit on this page if you scroll down to May 30 2004: A woman he doesn't know is trying to visit him in prison, and he suspects she's involved in the occult. He feels uneasy! He senses danger! He prays silently. He declines the visit but describes the terrible stress that the "fiery trial" of this encounter-that-never-happened has inflicted upon him. So the guy who was wandering around New York slaughtering people now re-defines himself as the trembling victim of some woman who wanted to visit him under guard in a secure prison facility. He concludes: "Without exaggeration, each day of my life as a Christian involves some form of spiritual warfare."

I think it's safe to say this guy is still completely bonkers.

Makes you actually want censorship on the web, doesn't it?

No.
posted by boredomjockey at 3:49 AM on June 12, 2004

taz and boredomjockey nailed it.
posted by dabitch at 5:35 AM on June 12, 2004

I can't seem to find it all that confusing. He got repeated life sentences, then he had all the time in the world to find himself in prison, where he's being "taken care" of. I'm not at all saying that it's nurturing to narrowly escape death by having your throat sliced by a fellow inmate, but it is an institution where there is opportunity aplenty for that brand of dogma.
posted by Quixoticlife at 6:44 AM on June 12, 2004

Its eerily insincere. I read this, and It all seems so contrived... Its about as shallow as the teenage boy who breaks the rules and loses the privilege to the car, and suddenly tries to act adult, reformed, to get the car again. I'm sure the parole people see this too, since we is perpetually denied. I really had no opinion on if he had truly reformed or not before reading these.... now I know he is as sick as he ever was, and should never be released.
posted by re_verse at 6:54 AM on June 12, 2004

I think he sounds under the influence of psychiatric drugs. If he is schizophrenic, he's going to sound flat anyway.

If it isn't possible for a murderer to get redeemed, it isn't possible for the rest of us either. God's standard is perfection. We either give our lives to Jesus and take his sacrifice on the cross on our stead, living the rest of our lives for Him, or we keep our own lives and pay for our own sins. One sin is enough to keep us out of the eternal presence of God. To a natural human mind, in one sense, you are right, it doesn't seem fair. But let me put it to you this way-if we could only get to heaven by being "good", on our own efforts, that means if you blow it you are damned with no recourse. None. How would you like to go to hell for littering? Me neither.

Don't worry. This isn't a matter of saying a "magic" prayer. If a murderer's heart isn't changed, he is not going to have eternal life with the Lord. But our problem is not seeing or understanding that on the reality scale, even the best of us is much nearer the murderer than on the goodness side of the equation.
posted by konolia at 7:13 AM on June 12, 2004

Your argument, konolia, is a prime example of why true-believers give me the hownling fantods (not that I think you're a tb, konolia):

even the best of us is much nearer the murderer than on the goodness side of the equation

Bascially, the moral scale you're proposing looks like this:

BAD->killing people->not killing people------------->accepting jesus as your personal savior->GOOD

Which to me looks terribly sociopathic, as you can justifiy or absolve any act, regardless of its actual effects on actual people, by your adherence to an arbitrary religious dogma.

Personally, I feel that those of us who haven't shot anybody in the face are much, much, much better people than those who have, and what each one of us choses to believe or not doesn't really change that equation.
posted by signal at 11:35 AM on June 12, 2004

And by " what each one of us choses to believe", I mean our religious beliefs, not our ethical ones, which would preempt this discussion.
posted by signal at 11:44 AM on June 12, 2004

Well, Mark Spitz in his prime was and I imagine still is a much, much better swimmer than I am. So on a scale of good to bad swimmers, he'd be on one end and I would be nearer the other. However, neither one of us would have the capacity to swim across the Pacific Ocean.

Now think of the best person you know. Then think of your theoretic repentant murderer. The standard of holiness required to enter Heaven without Jesus' sacrifice would be a much bigger gap to get over than the Pacific for Mark Spitz the Olympic Gold Medal swimmer.

Most of us puny humans cannot even imagine how holy "Holy" really is. We see someone who is in our estimation a good decent person-but compare that person to an absolute standard of holiness and that person will actually look like Pol Pot or Hitler in contrast.
posted by konolia at 12:23 PM on June 12, 2004

konnie explains the theology fairly well, but if I may oversimplify:

Even the best among us is not capable of "earning" ultimate blessing based on our own actions. It is only possible with the "hand-up" from God provided by what they call "the personal relationship with Christ". It's kind of like nobody being able to get a penthouse suite in Las Vegas without a referral from Mr. Vegas (okay, maybe a little less creepy than that). But if you continue being consistently sinful (not just occasionally sinning) after you acheive that Personal Relationship, you are still going to get crossed off the "In" list for Heaven. The dilemma is that, among the community of the "saved", those who have blown it usually don't have a clue that they have, and often, neither do others in the community. Which is how, way too often, (God only knows, but we all have our opinions) religious communities end up enabling some definately-not-going -to-heaven people.

Anyway, the Live Journal of Anne Frank is much more entertaining.
posted by wendell at 12:46 PM on June 12, 2004

but jesus as he lived on earth was no standard of perfection - he yelled about things, and got mad at the authorities of his community, and stole a donkey, and all that. I don't see him representing some incredible and unreachable standard that no other human being would be capable of matching.

and yeah, when did moses and david ask for jesus's forgiveness? What about god in the OT - he killed people - did he ask for his own forgiveness? I mean, he's already a bit schizo - he came to earth as jesus christ to bear the wrath of - himself! Did he then ask for his own forgiveness to appease his own wrath?

I dunno, i think god needs a good shrink.
posted by mdn at 12:51 PM on June 12, 2004

MDN, guess what. Yelling at people is not always a sin. And the Bible says "Be angry and sin not"-not "don't ever get angry." And the donkey thing apparently was by previous arrangement-otherwise the disciples would have probably been beat upside the head when they went to get it.

As for the rest of what you said, if you really want an answer, email me. Thanks to a kind mefite, I now have gmail, and I'm itching to take it out for a spin.

So Wendell, you are an Arminian? ;-) (As for enabling, see the parable of the wheat and the tares....)
posted by konolia at 1:18 PM on June 12, 2004

"The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life." -1 Timothy 1:15-16
posted by aaronshaf at 1:19 PM on June 12, 2004

The idea of grace and salvation would make sense if sin wasn't a construction of God.

The whole traditional Christian theological system revolves around entrapment and a very limited binary choice.

Its as if a guy has a gun to your head and says: "If you love me, I won't shoot you. I'll save your life."

Any system which would reward Berkowitz and punish my childhood neighbor, who was an atheist and who saved a family from a burning building at the cost of his own life, is a very twisted system.

In this context, the Mormons make much more sense, as they will put most people in heaven.
posted by pandaharma at 2:10 PM on June 12, 2004

konolia & wendell: I am not discussing the theology of the case, (which I am not qualified to discuss anyway) but its ethics. By stating that a heinous act is "in contrast" not so heinous, as compared to an arbitrary and, to me, imaginary standard of goodness, which standard is atainable through some ethically-neutral ritual, belief or other religuos action, you render all ethical judgements untenable.
I understand that this is actually a goal or logical corollary oc christian ethics ("judge not lest..." et al), but from a secular point of view, it results in a sociopathic system where the actual harm you cause other people is less relevant than your state of mind after the harm is done.
posted by signal at 2:30 PM on June 12, 2004

Well, if it helps I'm all for the guy staying in prison right where he is at. Actions have consequences.


As for the atheist and the burning building...if it was in him to do that, you never know what else was going on in his head. God looks at the heart, which right now is a place none of us mortals has a window into.
posted by konolia at 3:48 PM on June 12, 2004

konolia: Are you saying that an atheist who does such a thing is probably secretly a Christian? If so, how do you figure? If not, are you now saying that Christian belief is not in fact necessary for salvation because God will look into the boy's heart and at the deeds he's done?

As an atheist I'd be dismayed to think that people are looking at my good deeds and thinking to themselves "he must actually be a Christian"! Within the past year I've had three people tell me, "I can't believe you're an atheist -- you're so nice" or " -- you're not angry" or " -- you seem like such a spiritual person". I suppose they were expecting an ogre carrying a large club?
posted by boredomjockey at 5:06 PM on June 12, 2004

All I am saying is we don't know what he was thinking when he ran into that building. We don't know what he was thinking as he drew his last breath.

But anyhow, that's all speculation. What I can tell you is this: getting to know the Lord is a really good thing, and He really is neat. Awesome, but neat.
posted by konolia at 7:34 PM on June 12, 2004

I hate to harp on Mormon theology (since I'm not one) but what Konolia is saying, is very close to what they believe.

I'm personally agnostic in theory and atheistic in practice, but I've had a good Mormon friend of mine tell me that I would have a shot at going to the Celestial Kingdom (their highest level of heaven) because of a good deed I did.

I think a lot of conservative Christians probably secretly agree with this theological point. I can remember, when I was a kid, watching Ghandhi with my very fundie mum who remarked, "I don't care if he's Hindu. There's no way this man is going to hell."
posted by pandaharma at 7:40 PM on June 12, 2004

I'd rather he were a jesus freak than a serial murderer.

I'm with crash davis on this one. A person can be both.
posted by kayjay at 7:41 PM on June 12, 2004

No, pandaharma, not what I'm saying. (Married to a former Mormon, btw.) I am saying that you never know if someone called on Jesus in the last moments of life.

The greatest sin of all is rejecting the sacrifice Jesus made for us.
posted by konolia at 4:03 AM on June 13, 2004

God's standard is perfection.

Then he should have made us better.

The greatest sin of all is rejecting the sacrifice Jesus made for us.

I will forego the taco I wanted for lunch today so that all future generations may enjoy a life free of hunger...

(Count the logical fallacies above.)
posted by rushmc at 10:14 AM on June 13, 2004

I am saying that you never know if someone called on Jesus in the last moments of life.

Why the hell would they do that, if they were an atheist/agnostic? Not believing in the supernatural is not something you do to feel "tough" or "cool" until things get scary or death is imminent and then you renounce the pretense and admit to what you knew in your heart to be true all along. You have a very strange idea of the non-religious, konolia. I would be as likely to call on Pikachu in the last moments of my life as on Jesus.
posted by rushmc at 10:17 AM on June 13, 2004

I'm with rush--Why would i ever call on Jesus at any moment, being the nice Jewish boy that i am? And isn't it kinda sad that you have to ascribe belief to that heroic guy that saved his family at the cost of his life--Jesus didn't make him a hero, or cause him to try to save his family. Love did, and while you may ascribe that to Jesus, not all people do (not even a majority of people on Earth do).
posted by amberglow at 10:25 AM on June 13, 2004

You know, the atheist running into a burning building question has really been on my mind...I was actually standing on the choir platform today in the middle of the worship service thinking about it. And this is what popped into my head:

Let's say that Joe is walking past a burning building, hears someone yelling inside, runs in, and rescues a kid. So far so good. In this case, Joe himself makes it out too. So far, even better. But here is where it gets interesting....seems that the police, who got there about the time Joe and the kid get out, see Joe, grab him, and throw the cuffs on him.

Seems that Joe is a wanted man. Our buddy Joe killed a man two years ago, in a fit of rage....for two years Joe has been on the lam. During that two years, Joe has calmed down some, and has actually turned into rather a decent fellow.

Okay, here's the thing. Joe, our hero, the guy who is now a decent fellow, KILLED A MAN. And according to our system of justice, he has a price to pay. Jail, certainly, death penalty, possibly, depending on circumstances.

Now does the fact that Joe saved a kid and apparently is now rehabilitated negate the fact that he will now be going to jail, trial, and because he did do it, prison?

One other thing. Let's make the murder victim your dad, or your brother, or your friend.


Yes, it was a good thing the atheist did, running into that building. In fact it was noble. Noone can or should dispute that. But the fact is that that atheist-and every other person apart from God-is under a death warrant. A way has been made to satisfy that death warrant. Only one way.


I leave you now to your own thoughts.
posted by konolia at 11:29 AM on June 13, 2004

But the fact is that that atheist-and every other person apart from God-is under a death warrant. A way has been made to satisfy that death warrant. Only one way.

Sez you, not everyone. And when you say God, you don't mean God, or Allah, or any of the many other gods people on this Earth believe in, but Jesus only. You're mistaken when you say "only one way."

All human beings are under a death warrant, whether they believe in a deity or not--we all die, no matter what. It's what we do in this life and how we treat others that counts. What good is it to believe something (or anything) if that belief never informs your actions and the way you live your life? Son of Sam finding Jesus now is meaningless--if you want to hang out with him in Heaven, enjoy yourself--many of us find that attitude demeans belief and faith, and personal responsibility as well.

Deathbed confessions and absolution were a staple of Catholicism long ago i believe (i think they even were a factor in Luther's actions against the Church)--i'm surprised that you believe them too.
posted by amberglow at 11:49 AM on June 13, 2004

on a related note: Jesus Loves Me, Let Me Go
posted by amberglow at 11:59 AM on June 13, 2004

Well, amberglow, please understand that I (and God)expect "saved" people to act like it. If I had an apple tree and it bore oranges instead, I'd be correct in assuming it wasn't an apple tree at all. The Bible does say that one should produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And make no mistake, repentance (not just remorse) is a very huge part of the process. Son of Sam was a sinner. So was I . I never killed anyone, but there are other sins. I did a lot of things I hope my kids never do.

The point of salvation is to restore one's lost relationship with God, whereby one is adopted into His family. The question is, will you be reconciled to God?
posted by konolia at 12:04 PM on June 13, 2004

please understand that I (and God)expect "saved" people to act like it.

And when they don't, what happens?
Bush certainly doesn't act in accordance with his professed "saved" beliefs. Many, many "saved" people don't--the people mentioned in the link i posted certainly don't.
posted by amberglow at 12:18 PM on June 13, 2004

Konolia, first off, I want to give you major props for explaining and defending your beliefs pretty much all by yourself and with earnestness, intelligence and humor. I'm strongly in the athiest camp myself but I really respect you for sticking to your guns - I would have quit trying to explain myself long ago.
So I hesitate to even get into this because it seems like piling on - gotta root for the underdog and all that - but this particular hypothetical example is really interesting.

Say the athiest who ran into the burning building, sacrificing his life to save others, did not have any final thoughts of Jesus or religion at all and therefore is unsaved. And say Berkowitz is truly deeply repentent and is therefore saved. Doesn't that concept seem wrong to you on a gut level? The selfless hero going to hell, the murderer going to heaven? Doesn't part of you just revolt against that?
posted by CunningLinguist at 2:58 PM on June 13, 2004

The problem with the whole Christian idea of salvation is that it falls apart when you spend any length of time examining it.

In this theological system, God created man, God created heaven and hell, God created free-will, and then God created conditions by which that free-will could lead towards either one's destruction or one's pleasure, and then God allowed an outside party (Satan, also created by God) to lead lesser minds to their destruction.

Therefore this system, taken to its logical conclusion, really makes God seem incredibly cruel and capricious. This system is set up so that only a few get salvation and the rest are tortured and destroyed. There's no flexibility, no room for error.

The only way this system would make any sort of sense is if God is not omnipotent, omniscient, etc. If the rules were imposed by someone else upon God and he had no choice in the matter, then things like Christ's sacrifice would have true meaning. It would mean God was taking a personal loss to try to fix the system for the benefit of humanity.

But if he's omni-everything and if he created the system, then the system didn't need to be broken in the first place and he could have fixed his earlier mistakes in such a way that none would have to suffer, irregardless of their choices.

And when you consider all choices ultimately come from God, why should humans be punished so horrifically by those choices? After all, even if free will exists, humans are constrained by their programming; people can only make choices from a decision tree programmed by the creator.
posted by pandaharma at 3:41 PM on June 13, 2004

nicely said, and this: ..if God is not omnipotent, omniscient, etc. reminds me of the whole "thou shalt have no other Gods before me" thing.

Judaism didn't give Christians that whole tortured logic thing i don't think--i wonder where they got it.
posted by amberglow at 3:46 PM on June 13, 2004

But if he's omni-everything and if he created the system, then the system didn't need to be broken in the first place and he could have fixed his earlier mistakes in such a way that none would have to suffer, irregardless of their choices.

God gave us free choice. Also, God doesn't make mistakes. People do, and people are responsible for them. God didn't have to give us an out. But He loved us enough to do that.

Yes, there's a lot about all this that is hard to understand. But we're not God, and He is.

Say the athiest who ran into the burning building, sacrificing his life to save others, did not have any final thoughts of Jesus or religion at all and therefore is unsaved. And say Berkowitz is truly deeply repentent and is therefore saved. Doesn't that concept seem wrong to you on a gut level? The selfless hero going to hell, the murderer going to heaven? Doesn't part of you just revolt against that?

Well, here I have to thump Bible a bit. Therein it says that our righteousness is as filthy rags. (In the original language filthy rags refers to used menstrual cloths. ) From a purely human point of view we see people as good or bad. From God's infinitely more detailed and clear view, we are all of us, best to worst, a filthy mess desperately in need of cleansing. And it is the worst sort of pride-in fact, self-righteousness-to insist we don't need that cleaning. Even the best of us is filled with sin, whether it shows on the outside or not. And along with being a totally loving God, God is also a totally Just God. Sin has to be judged and dealt with. Otherwise, even Satan himself could claim entrance back into Heaven. Yet God is still a Merciful God who does not want any person in hell, and He will bend Heaven and Earth to find a lost sheep. Even Son of Sam.

Yes, there is so much we don't understand. I do know we are judged with justice, and I do know that the more light we have the more strictly we are judged.

So much of this could be cleared up if I could just communicate the true character of God to you. How loving and just and merciful and kind and wise He is-once you experience that, a lot of things just fall into place.
posted by konolia at 4:44 PM on June 13, 2004

And when they don't, what happens

Amberglow, sometimes the answer God would give to me on that is "none of your business, sweetheart." There are particular cases, and I am sure you know of plenty yourself, where only the Creator knows for sure where His creature stands...but on Judgement Day itself I guess we will all know.
posted by konolia at 4:47 PM on June 13, 2004

MDN, guess what. Yelling at people is not always a sin. And the Bible says "Be angry and sin not"-not "don't ever get angry."

not saying it was, just that the behavior of jesus did not exhibit some unreachable holiness that makes normal humans look like "filthy rags". Just in terms of their straightforward actual behavior, it would seem to me that the atheist who ran into the burning building set a higher standard of holiness than the earthy incarnation of god, as far os human activity is concerned (death by fire sounds worse to me than death by crucifixion, and the atheist actively ran into the fire to attempt to prevent the painful, tortuous death of loved ones, whereas jesus was convicted & sentenced by others, and he died for his beliefs, not to prevent tragedy.)

Yes, I understand that if you believe he "died for your sins" then there's another level to all this, but I'm addressing the fact that his standard of perfection does not actually seem to be that far above regular "good" people, in terms of his actual earthly actions, since you keep saying it doesn't matter if you're a litterer or a murderer, it's all the same to god.

Think of this way: would you be willing to be jesus? Would you be willing to endure three or four hours of extreme pain in order to save everyone from hell, and then be resurrected and be worshipped for eternity? But what about this: would you be willing to be that atheist who ran into the burning building? Say he's right, and there's no afterlife - would be you willing to be the guy who died by fire trying to save a family? Doesn't that seem like a harder question?

And the donkey thing apparently was by previous arrangement-otherwise the disciples would have probably been beat upside the head when they went to get it.

that, my dear, is circular reasoning at its finest - he couldn't have done something wrong, because he couldn't have done something wrong.

Yet God is still a Merciful God who does not want any person in hell, and He will bend Heaven and Earth to find a lost sheep. Even Son of Sam.

If he's bending heaven and earth to reach people, why do good people remain atheists?

I don't think people here are so much upset by the idea of berkowitz being forgiven as the idea that berkowitz could be forgiven, and enjoy heaven for eternity, while gandhi, the buddha, & einstein are burning eternally. It just seems warped.
posted by mdn at 7:17 PM on June 13, 2004

Amberglow, sometimes the answer God would give to me on that is "none of your business, sweetheart."
I know that part, konolia : >

I guess my point is really about people more than about punishment or reward or afterlife stuff (all my questions to you, and concerning religion usually are, konolia--life is where we are, and what's important--for me). You Christians seem to accept anyone that says they're born-again or saved, no? I've read that it's a big part of Bush's support. But what if the people who say they're saved or born-again don't ever exhibit any kind of behavior that proves that or shows that they even ever read the bible or loved Jesus or are filled with the spirit or do good or anything? They don't do good, or help people, and may in fact do the opposite (again, Bush). You're making people part of your club whether or not they're good, or lead good lives, or anything...seems like you guys are being played for fools a lot, and providing cover for some nasty shit (like the kiddie porn guy in my link above). You've said before that their judgment will come, but is that good enough?

The Borgias all confessed on their deathbeds, and supposedly went to Heaven, even though they murdered and poisoned and did terrible things to get and keep power--how is that any different from you guys, with the born-again thing?

Good people do good, regardless of their beliefs or religion. Evil or nasty people don't, and they often hide behind the trusting, and use them to do their shit, or provide cover for that shit.

and what mdn said re: good people. I'd think God would want to spend time with Einstein and Gandhi and Buddha, and not with Son of Sam, Bush, and the kiddie porn guy.
posted by amberglow at 7:46 PM on June 13, 2004

So much of this could be cleared up if I could just communicate the true character of God to you. How loving and just and merciful and kind and wise He is.

See, this is where the possibility of debate falls apart. Because I just don't see love, justice, mercy, kindness or wisdom in a God who would damn a good man for not believing in Him.
I guess the fundamental difference is that I measure a man by what he does, but you say God measures him by what he believes. Different criteria.
posted by CunningLinguist at 8:01 PM on June 13, 2004

Well, CunningLinguist, I start out with knowing that God is all merciful and will always do what is right. I also know that He doesn't tell us humans everything He is up to.

And amberglow, actually if the Christian church were operating the way the Old Testament describes, people who are acting evil would be getting put out of the church if they didn't repent. I don't agree with your assessment of Bush, from what I know, but that's a whole other gallon can of worms. ;-)

Anyhow, First and Second Corinthians does get into matters of church discipline, and if you are interested in such matters, give it a read.
posted by konolia at 4:36 AM on June 14, 2004

You're making people part of your club whether or not they're good, or lead good lives, or anything...seems like you guys are being played for fools a lot, and providing cover for some nasty shit

You are looking for critical evaluation from people who base their worldviews on unsupported belief and wish-fulfillment? It seems entirely in character to me that someone who accepts the words of other humans that there is a God and this is what he is like would likewise be perfectly willing to accept anyone's contention that he was a believer, without requiring any sort of evidence to support that claim.
posted by rushmc at 8:39 AM on June 14, 2004

But my religion doesn't think that way at all, rush, and our God is the same God as theirs.
posted by amberglow at 9:04 AM on June 14, 2004